From their own press release here
NOAA Scientific Integrity
“Scientific integrity is at the core of conducting ethical science. By being open and honest about our science, we build understanding and trust. I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.”
Dr. Jane Lubchenco,
NOAA Administrator
Science is the foundation of all NOAA does. NOAA’s weather forecasts and warnings, nautical charts, climate information, fishing regulations, coastal management recommendations, and satellites in the sky all depend on science. The quality of NOAA science is exemplary, and many of NOAA’s scientists are recognized as national and international experts in their fields.
NOAA has been working to develop a scientific integrity policy that would continue and enhance NOAA’s culture of transparency, integrity, and ethical behavior.
To this end, NOAA has embarked on a thoughtful and transparent effort to draft a policy to uphold the principles of scientific integrity contained in the President’s March 9, 2009 memorandum and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) director, John Holdren’s December 17, 2010 memorandum on scientific integrity.
In April, NOAA submitted a progress report to OSTP describing its progress on developing a scientific integrity policy and describing relevant policies currently in effect.
High resolution (Credit: Dave Partee/Alaska Sea Grant)
In February 2011, an early draft scientific integrity policy was shared with all of the agency’s employees for their review and comment. A revised draft taking into consideration comments received from NOAA employees and additional internal review is being prepared for release for public comment, and will be posted here once available.
===============================================================
I guess this means that Dr. Thomas Peterson of NCDC won’t be able to write ghost authored talking points against citizen scientists anymore?
Unfortunately, as far as I know, the public hasn’t been invited to comment on this new policy yet, which seems to me a key point for fostering integrity. However, I’ve located a copy of the draft (dated 3-30-2011), and you can read it here:
3_30_11_NOAA_Scientific_Integrity_draft (PDF)
I will give NOAA this much, they’ve stopped using this ridiculous slogan we’ve pointed out previously:
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
And replaced it with a more sensible one in recent press releases:
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.
So maybe they listen to us after all.
“I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.”
=======================================================
So you’re just saying that prior to Feb 2011, this didn’t exist at NOAA….
…we already knew that
Let us know when it’s implemented….
Engineers subscribe to a strict code of ethics and there are disciplinary measures that can have an engineer suspended for violation of them. These are promulgated in Acts of Provincial Parliaments in Canada and I believe State Legislations in USA. Its time for scientists to be guided by similar enforceable codes.
NOAA was established in 1970.
In February 2011, an early draft scientific integrity policy was shared with all of the agency’s employees for their review and comment.
NOAA, lacking integrity for over 40 years. I guess in another few years they may have a ‘working paper’ rather than just a draft. Considering that they are part of the Department of Commerce does the fact that they do not actually have an integrity policy actually surprise anyone.
The Department of Commerce deals with Money, do you understand, they are not a scientific organization, they are a money organization.
Wow, they sound just like a four year old after they have been caught stealing candy. Lots of talk about how they will obey the rules, but my four year old knew that talk would not cut it. These guys seem to think all they need to do is talk and all will be forgiven. Not!
“Scientific integrity is at the core of conducting ethical science. By being open and honest about our science, we build understanding and trust. I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.”
As Hungarian peasants used to say in response to the standard communist greeting “Freedom!”: That’s what would be needed. And some rain.
(In a time when all their property was confiscated and he who has shown any resistance was taken at gunpoint by men wearing leather jackets, just before dawn, in a black car, never to return, nor to be heard about ever)
“So maybe they listen to us after all. ”
Maybe, and then there is that razor-sharp budget axe freshly ground.
Either way works for me.
What a sad commentary, not of NOAA, but of the responses thereto on this site.
Motivation for the directive (aimed at all scientific agencies in the federal govt, including NOAA, FDA, USDA and EPA) to implement an “integrity” policy was to prevent the political interference into the scientific process, as happened with the last administration rewriting scientific conclusions, especially as it relates to climate change.
It severely harms the credibility of skeptics to criticize efforts to protect scientific information and the people who create it from political interference. I’m sure the echo chamber on some web sites will cherry-pick in order to imply (or directly state) that these agencies lacked ‘integrity’ in the past, but the grown-ups in the room know better. Some anti-govt folks have been attacking the ‘integrity’ of certain agencies’ processes with respect to scientific inquiries, so the agencies transparently adopt an integrity policy and the same folks criticize the agencies for taking such a step. Intellectual dishonesty certainly does run rampant, but not within these agencies.
They probably mean Post-Normal Scientific Integrity anyway.
That other paragon of integrity, tenuous sticklers for academic rigour and absolute objectivity, are changing the goalposts again.
H/T The Bishop!
Perhaps, they know the new report is as ***p as their [undergraduate] most recent effort: the AR4.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the pudding model. We shall see.
page 9 Section Ten, under the heading Science, should that be deduction rather than induction?
More seriously, is this going to be the backing for a bigger push for authority. After all, now they’ve got integrity everyone!
Like Gandhi’s comment when asked what he thought of “Western civilization”.
He replied, “It would be a good idea”
It is interesting reading about a major climate science organisation and it is always interesting to read WUWT. However, despite the comments from those who post here, I think the “warmists” have won. The MSM doesn’t run much on alternative views of climate change concentrating its reporting on “the science”. Despite the furore “Climategate” engendered nothing really came of it and the various scientists involved have been cleared of any misdemeanors. Here in Australia the government’s Climate Change Commission has just released a report giving dire warnings of sea level rises, droughts, floods etc if CO2 levels are not cut by 2020. This has encouraged the government to progress “Carbon Tax” legislation. Thanks to WUWT and other sites for their efforts but I fear the sceptics have been vanquished
I really hate to be political, but while Obama is president, I don’t believe a word out of the mouth of any of his appointees!
The first question is, what policy is currently in effect for “scientific integrity” and has it been followed? Have things like the hockey stick come out of this “integrity”? Have freedom of information requests been illegally denied with this “integrity”? Has all testimony to congress and the administration been shown to be done with “integrity”? If we are just now getting around to “integrity”, then this must be a change. That would mean that formerly, there was no integrity. That would mean that they were lying to congress, the administration, and the American people before this. When they “get integrity”, will they prove it by making the appropriate arrests, since lying to Congress is a crime?
Second, who cares what wonderful promises of “integrity” come from this? I mean, the USSR had a constitution with wonderful promises of freedom, they simply ignored it, will this be ignored also? If it is, and further lack of integrity is shown, will efforts to document that be blocked with further secrecy and illegal blocking of the freedom of information act?
In otherwords, put your nmoney where your mouth is, let’s see some arrests.
“NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.”
How about replacing the last part with “And attempt to and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.”
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, now there’s a name we can all trust.
Jay Davis – Smart move . I don’t believe a word that comes out of the mouth of the One who appointed them either . If he gets reelected , we’re in serious trouble .
Well, that mission statement change is a positive. And, yes, several of us here advocated a change in wording very similar to the one they adopted. But then GMTA (Great Minds Think Alike). And I appreciate the effort.
But then I check to see if Serreze is still head of NSIDC, and. . . yeppers. Tho technically speaking, NOAA is just one of their largest “sponsors”, not actually their bosses.
So, anyway, WIP/Incomplete, but keep trying, folks.
The problem with those in government organisations given the burden of producing accurate scientific data and forecasts is very simply a consideration of this:
1. “I don’t want to lose my comfortable, well paid, job and pension”, and
2. What do my my political masters want/need so I can achieve the above?
Hence the cult of the Team and its members’ supposed belief in AGW – you have to think in terms of a war situation, when you have to have people who are really competent and not those who tell you that they are competent.
Unfortunately, NOAA would get an F in a wartime situation, as they can only say they are competent, but their motivation (as demonstrated above) is highly suspect.
Section 4.03 says,
All well and good, but there needs to be a ombudman who will resolve criticisms and complaints that don’t rise to the level of misconduct. Unacknowledged Photoshopped images are an example.
Section 5.01c says all staff will,
Seeing this actually implemented will go a long way in restoring some measure of trust in NOAA pronouncements.
NOAA Scientific Integrity
“Scientific integrity is at the core of conducting ethical science. By being open and honest about our science, we build understanding and trust. I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.”
Dr. Jane Lubchenco,
NOAA Administrator
____________________________________________________________
How about a statement from Dr. Lubchenco explaining precisely why all this can’t be taken for granted?
Jay Davis says:
May 23, 2011 at 2:11 pm
I really hate to be political, but while Obama is president, I don’t believe a word out of the mouth of any of his appointees!
The transparency he promised, he hasn’t delivered, so why expect it from others.
Unfortunately, our main stream media promotes promises and ignores when they are not fulfilled.
NOAA’s changes appear good on paper. Promoting them will bolster support for NOAA. Whether they actually are enforced will probably not be noticed by any non-skeptics and the skeptics observations will continue to be ignored.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
NOAA strives for scientific integrity <– lol, when did they lose their "scientific integrity"?
They can start by firing James Hansen.
Change from: “NOAA understands…” to “NOAA’s mission is to understand …”
I suppose that depends on the meaning of the word “IS”.
Gary Pearse says:
May 23, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Engineers subscribe to a strict code of ethics and there are disciplinary measures that can have an engineer suspended for violation of them. These are promulgated in Acts of Provincial Parliaments in Canada and I believe State Legislations in USA. Its time for scientists to be guided by similar enforceable codes.
Hi Gary.
Quite right, if an engineer designs/produces a faulty piece of equipment, it will show fairly quickly and come back to haunt the producing company and the engineer involved, in the way of expensive recalls or even law suites (Like Toyota)
Heres a simple example:
If a car’s wheel’s broke off because of poor engineering / design flaw, the publicity could cripple a company’s financial bottom line and reputation.
Climate scientist have no such checks and bounds, they can litterly operate anyway they want with a wink and a nod from there fellow peer review believers, in most cases this can be equated to a form of inbreeding with too small a group producing secretive, unsupportable or checkable data, so much for diversity (as evidenced from the fraudulent hockeystick with the backing of the IPPC) there is no so disciplinary measures, in fact they are bribed, sanctioned and encouraged to perpetuate the fraud, they can and do get away with climate model murder.
Jay Davis says:
May 23, 2011 at 2:11 pm
I really hate to be political, but while Obama is president, I don’t believe a word out of the mouth of any of his appointees!
=====================================================
I don’t know why not……
….this is the exact same pledge he made
/snarc
Hi Gary.
Quite right, if an engineer designs/produces a faulty piece of equipment, it will show fairly quickly and come back to haunt the producing company and the engineer involved, in the way of expensive recalls or even law suites (Like Toyota)
A simple example:
If a car’s wheel’s broke off because of poor engineering / design flaw, the publicity could cripple a company’s financial bottom line and reputation.
Climate scientist have no such checks and bounds, they can literally operate anyway they want with a wink and a nod from there fellow peer review believers, in most cases this can be equated to a form of inbreeding with too small a group producing secretive, unsupportable or checkable data, so much for diversity (as evidenced from the fraudulent hockeystick with the backing of the IPPC) there is no so disciplinary measures, in fact they are bribed, sanctioned and encouraged to perpetuate the fraud, they can and do get away with climate model murder.
Mr. deSousa — Hansen doesn’t work for NOAA …
So now we have “ethical science” – and what are the other sciences called that are not “ethical”?
All the policy in the world doesn’t guarantee integrity. Only deeds confer integrity. But, to be fair, it’s exceedingly difficult to be scrupulously accurate, to resolutely consider all sides of an issue, to pursue the truth regardless of the consequences, and to see all the implications of old and new evidence.
However, there seem to be too many at work in the field of science – as in politics – who are self serving, or weak, or lacking intellect or imagination, or too vulnerable to their personal prejudices/preferences, or several or all of these.
The furtherance of science depends on their exposure by scientists of integrity, journalists who place the inviolable truth above all else, and, in the end, reality, the hardest judge of all.
Policy can just as easily be as much of a smokescreen as marketing slogans, instead of a platform for the pursuit of knowledge.
I am so glad to hear they will be releasing their adjustment code and manuals. Right?
evanmjones — The raw data for every single NOAA temp reconstruction and ‘state of the climate’ report is readily available on line, and their adjustment methods are described in detail at multiple sites including their own.
Richard deSousa says:
May 23, 2011 at 2:56 pm
They can start by firing James Hansen.
That would probably be easier if he worked for NOAA.
NOAA, IPCC and BOM should really just tell it like it is: “Scientific integrity is outside the fringe of conducting AGW science. By being secretive and fraudualent about our science, we convince the public to submit to a Worldwide Socialist Government. I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring deceit, trotskyism, fraud, intolerance, and authoritarianism to the job.”
Jane’s first stop in her pursuit of scientific integrity should be http://www.climatecentral.org
http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people/
Founding Board
Jane Lubchenco
Dr. Lubchenco serves as Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Prior to her Senate confirmation in early 2009, she resigned from the Board of Climate Central.
So while she has resigned from the CC board and allows ClimateCentral to be PropagandaCentral she’s claiming to preserving scientific integrity?
What about Lunchenco claiming ocean acidification is causing Osteoporosis of the Sea?
Dr. Lubchenco believes climate models are now sufficiently “robust” to predict wind patterns 100 years from now.
Her National Climate Service would help businesses, elected officials and regulators make good decisions on issues like where to put buildings or roads or wind farms.
Lubchenco declared that science would guide the agency and that she expects it to play a role in developing a green economy.
At OSU Lubchenco fabricated an AGW link to Oregon’s seasonal ocean dead zones that her $9 million NAS grant research team failed to establish. Reasearchers cautioned they were “unable to establish the extent of the link, if any, to global warming.”
That didn’t stop Lubchenco from so widely distributing her fabricated link that even RealClimate regulars became convinced it was “established science”.
With one of them responding “Changes in the timing of upwelling off the Oregon coast has been linked to global warming.”
And another “Dead zones: you have proof they aren’t?”
And of course there is her likely role in the firing of Oregon’s Climatologist at her OSU for being a skeptic.
@ Anything is possible:
“How about a statement from Dr. Lubchenco explaining precisely why all this can’t be taken for granted?”
It can’t be taken for granted because there are those who call foul when they hear or read any scientific report of which they don’t like the political implications, real or imagined.
A story told by Rabbi Blue. One sabbath, as people were leaving his synagogue, a women came up to him, warmly shook his hand and said, “Thank you for your sermon – this week you sounded SO sincere.”
“to implement an “integrity” policy was to prevent the political interference into the scientific process”
Once the courts have it in their hands then corrupted scientific processes can be prosecuted no matter the source of political opinions or pressures. With freedom must come accountability and responsibility.
Controls over financial reporting which at one time suffered from the same problem with the same result for the public was accomplished via legislation and regulation.
There was little call for “academic freedom” in the interpretation of private enterprise operating results when what was really wanted was results the “common man” could reliably understand because of consistency in definition and standards of evaluation.
“Academic freedom” in the policy arena is a lot like the communist party member elitist greeting and expresses well what is wrong with communism. It allowed for government elitists to dictate to the people when what drives success is free people that have a real stake in outcomes.
What is really needed is some enforceable standards to avoid both top down and bottom up abuses equally and of course some rain.
There is no other option if science is to find a credible place in policy making.
Freedom of interpretation is inconsistent with the consistency of interpretation needed for a smooth democratic process to operate on the basis of science. Thus political interference is necessary. But what you want is for that interference to based upon clear standards and interpreted by a judiciary that holds everybody participating equally accountable.
The whole enterprise is a bitter irony, from Holdren on down.
Buzz, the AGW scare has been a Progressive-Democratic war against science that has been more pernicious, more successful, more widespread, and far more destructive than anything ever accomplished by the Republican right.
“NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.”
How are they going to reword that if Svensmark is proven correct? Maybe just tack on “and cosmic rays” right after the word “sun”?
Buzz Belleville,
You answered a question that wasn’t asked; misdirection. We want to see their their adjustment code and manuals. Everything. Our taxes paid for it.
People and organizations hide what they’re afraid to let others see. What ever happened to the transparency demanded by the scientific method?
Well their integrity and so forth surely NEEDS enhancement.
You know what they say… the first step to fixing a problem is to first recognize that you have a problem.
To Buzz Bellville,
Are you suggesting those commenting here should not be skeptical? My question to you is why?
Buzz Belleville says:
May 23, 2011 at 1:50 pm
“What a sad commentary, not of NOAA, but of the responses thereto on this site.
Motivation for the directive (aimed at all scientific agencies in the federal govt, including NOAA, FDA, USDA and EPA) to implement an “integrity” policy was to prevent the political interference into the scientific process, as happened with the last administration rewriting scientific conclusions, especially as it relates to climate change.”
Telling Holdren, Hansen, and others to “shut up” and stop publishing their personal little communist wishes under the auspices of US government agencies is not interfering in the scientific process. Where those people are there is no scientific process.
I can only applaud NOAA for their willingness, but why all the fuzz? Science only need objectivity in its search for what’s what to boot and then objectively deliver all that what’s what without any undue fuzz, everything else is just bureaucracy, which is ok as long as it is void of all political influences (but of course that last part that is so communistic, apparently, takes some cojones and lack of greed to keep away from in some academical circles.)
Sorry, what does Obama and Holdren know about “scientific integrity”?
I could go on, but simply refering to these up front reveals NOAA to be a political animal.
You cannot have integrity without first having humility. You cannot have humility and be unwilling to admit your mistakes. So, where is NOAA’s track record of admitting mistakes? As soon as it is published, I will take seriously their claim that they want to demonstrate integrity.
Actions speak louder than words.
Sorry, this new mission statement is still inadequate; it should be:
NOAA’s mission is to understand
and predictchanges in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun,and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.The second strikeout is due to the fact that this is political activism, not science.
So far, all they’ve changed is their mission statement, not their mission.
Now, if their mission really is to conserve, they should really look at their fuel budget. I’ll bet they use more oil products in a year than a lot of small nations. If they’re really concerned about pollution, they might want to look at alternative propulsion methods for putting up space vehicles. Some of the combustion by products of the solid fuels are rather nasty. Even generating the hydrogen and oxygen for the other engines doesn’t come cheap.
Fascinating. Aside from a great deal of self-promotion, the NOAA interim report (available here: http://www.noaa.gov/scientificintegrity/PDFs/NOAA_SummaryReport_ScientificIntegrity.pdf) doesn’t seem to say much of anything. It does provide a few interesting nuggets, however. For example, 25% of the report touts the NOAA’s use of Federal Advisory Committees, four of which advise on science. There is an The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) whose membership Is listed here: http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Board/board.html
The chairman of the Committee, Raymond J. Ban (whose NOAA CV is located here: http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Board/CVs/ban.html ) has some interesting connections:
In 1996, Mr. Ban was named a Centennial Fellow of Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. In 1998, he was named an Alumni Fellow of Penn State University, which recognizes the university’s most outstanding alumni each year.
Mr. Ban served on the Board of Atmospheric Science and Climate of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) from 2001 – 2004 and has recently completed chairing an NAS Committee on effective communication of uncertainty in weather forecasts. He has also served as a member of the Inter-Governmental Working Group of the United States Weather Research Program and as President of the Alumni Board of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at Penn State University.
Michael Mann’s Department of Meteorology and his Earth and Environmental Systems Institute fall under the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.
I haven’t checked on the other members, but their listed affiliations don’t seem particularly encouraging.
The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) advises the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and short-range strategies for research, education and the application of science to resource management and environmental assessment and prediction. Composed of eminent scientists, engineers, resource managers and educators, the diverse membership of the SAB assures expertise reflecting the full breadth of NOAA’s responsibilities, as well as the ethnic and gender diversity of the United States. Nominations for members are solicited from the public via notices in the Federal Register, as well as through other outreach processes. Member biographies, committee products and other information are available at: http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Board/board.html.
Keep your eye on that pea under the thimble. The advice from the committee has to be good: it reflects the ethnic and gender diversity of the United States.
“John Holdren’s December 17, 2010 memorandum on scientific integrity.”
“Dr Josef Mengele’s December 17, 1943 memorandum on medical ethics.”
Science ! NOW WITH INTEGRITY!
Methinks the NOAA doth protest too much.
Buzz Belleville says:
“It severely harms the credibility of skeptics to criticize efforts to protect scientific information and the people who create it from political interference.”
Blink…. blink…. BUAAHAHAH!!!!!
What was it that P.T. Barnum is generally credited with saying? Something about “a suckers born every minute?”
Integrity is not something that comes from a term paper or a speech, or a set of talking points.
Integrity is standing behind what you say, and having the temerity to present your proof. And, if you are eventually proven wrong, to accept that.
listen to Henry Rollins, Rage Against the Machine, the song called ‘Liar’.
They’ve embarked on a thoughtful effort?
I can’t even figure out if that’s a mixed metaphor or a malapropism or some really bad editing.
Buzz of Bellville, who posted above provides us with an example, a striking example of a form of behaviour and attitudes common to Warmists…. namely the ability to get something which is so blatantly obvious and correct completely arse about face!
The earth is warming dangerously…no it’s not…look out the window.
The sea levels are rising dangerously…no they’re not…go down to seaside and check for yourself.
Global warming is going to cause more hurricanes….??? Ah…and which hurricanes would they be?
The Icecaps are melting…uhm, no they’re not…go down to the seaside and check for yourself.
NOAA is a straight up scientific organization which does not manipulate data for political or doctrinaire ends….no it’s not…can’t you guys read?
As a former programmer for NOAA back in the early 1970s, I know I was guilty of “fiddling” with boundary conditions until outcomes more closely fit what we thought should be the result. There, my confession is one small step toward NOAA regaining some integrity.
More on the NOAA SAB:
Dr. James N. Sanchirico (an economist, not a hard-science person)
http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Board/CVs/sanchirico.html
Dr. Sanchirico has had a long association with the Resources for the Future (RFF) a nonprofit organization that conducts independent research into environmental, energy, and natural resource issues, primarily via economics and other social sciences. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., RFF performs research around the world. Founded in 1952, the institution is widely recognized as a pioneer in the field of resource economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resources_for_the_Future
Follow the money. According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know, but WC didn’t get to this one, apparently)
RFF is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. In fiscal year 2009, RFF’s operating revenue was $13.1 million, most of which came from individual and corporate contributions, foundation and government grants, and investment income.[3] The United States Environmental Protection Agency, the George Kaiser Family Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation comprised RFF’s top five donors in 2009.[4] The organization’s research programs make up the bulk of its expenses, amounting to almost 75 percent in 2006.[3]
Gee, are any of those funding sources from the skeptic side? No Exxon-Mobile? No B-P? Hmmmfff. I guess we can trust them; their funding is pure….
Now that I know Holdren’s involved that’s the end of it for me. The Obama administration is not a group of people I trust with integrity – “adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. “
Another NOAA Penn connection:
Eric J. Barron is dean of the Jackson School of Geosciences at The University of Texas at Austin, where he holds the Jackson Chair in Earth System Science. He began a career in geology as an undergraduate at Florida State University. His interest in geology and oceanography resulted in a master’s degree (1976) and a doctorate (1980) in oceanography from the University of Miami. His career turned to climate studies in 1976 with a Cray Supercomputing Fellowship from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Barron then joined NCAR as a postdoctoral research fellow and later became a research scientist in the global climate modeling group.
In 1985, he returned to the University of Miami as associate professor. Barron went to Pennsylvania State University in 1986 to direct the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences’ newly formed Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 1989, he was promoted to professor of geosciences. Under Barron’s leadership, the growth of ESSC resulted in the establishment of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences’ Environment Institute, which included ESSC and a group of other research centers. Barron became the director of this new Institute in 1998. He earned the title of distinguished professor in 1999. In 2002, he was named dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at Penn State.
In 2006, he joined The University of Texas at Austin as dean of the recently formed Jackson School of Geosciences. Barron’s research interests are in the areas of climatology, numerical modeling, and Earth history. During his career, he has worked diligently to promote the intersection of the geological sciences with the atmospheric sciences and the field of earth system science. He served as chair of the Climate Research Committee of the National Research Council (NRC) from 1990 to 1996. In 1997, he was named co-chair of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences (BASC) of the NRC, and since 1999 he has chaired the BASC. Additional NRC panels on which Barron has served include the Committee on Global Change Research, the Assessment of NASA Post-2000 Plans, Climate Change Science, the Human Dimensions of Global Change, the Panel on Grand Environmental Challenges, and the Committee on Tools for Tracking Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Releases in the Atmosphere: Implications for Homeland Security. In addition to serving on the National Research Council, Barron chaired the Science Executive Committee for NASA’s Earth Observing System and NASA’s Earth Science and Applications Advisory Committee (ESSAC). He has also served as chair of the USGCRP Forum on Climate Modeling, the Allocation Panel for the Interagency Climate Simulation Laboratory, the U.S. National Committee for PAGES and the NSF Earth System History Panel.
Barron is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2002, he was named a fellow of the National Institute for Environmental Science at Cambridge University. In 2003, he received the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal.
From NOAA SAB profile for
Heidi M. Cullen – Climate Central
Research and professional interests: climate science communication, climate literacy
Professional Preparation & Experience
2010-present Visiting Lecturer, Princeton University
2008-present Director of Communications/Senior Research Scientist, Climate Central, Princeton, NJ
2003-2008 Climate Expert, The Weather Channel, Atlanta, GA
2001-2003 Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
2000-2001 Post-Doc, NOAA Climate & Global Change Fellowship, Columbia University, NY, NY
2000 Ph.D. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Climate Variability, Columbia University
1993 B.Sc. Engineering/Operations Research, Columbia University
Select TV Experience
2008-present Climate Correspondent for PBS NewsHour
2005-2008 On-camera Climate Expert, Host of Forecast Earth on The Weather Channel
Maybe.
Hansen doesn’t work for NOAA …
Probably a stretch to think the reform would be multi-agency in advancing directives like the President’s memo on scientific integrity when you can instead offer up token examples instead. Its kind of like reforming earmarking. A lot of lip service and very little action. Nobody likes to give up power.
Dr. Eve Gruntfest, according to her NOAA biography, has all of her degrees in Geography, but her publications and interests all seem to be oriented toward the social sciences. Frankly, I’m getting tired of amateurs stomping on my turf. I notice that Indur Goklany is NOT on the NOAA SAB, where he would be a far better addition.
Dr. Eve Gruntfest
Since 2008 Eve Gruntfest has been the director of Social Science Woven into Meteorology (SSWIM) at the University of Oklahoma located in the NOAA Cooperative Institute for Mesocscale Meteorological Studies at the National Weather Center. SSWIM brings social science research, with new questions and new methods, to many of the agencies, research groups, and academic departments in the National Weather Center in Norman and elsewhere.
She is professor emeritus in Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS) where she was a professor from 1980-2007. She is a research associate with the Trauma, Health and Hazards Center at UCCS.
Dr. Gruntfest is a social scientist whose research concerns natural hazard mitigation with a particular focus on flash floods and warning systems. From February 2010-July 2010 she is an invited scientist at the Laboratoire d’étude des Transferts en Hydrologie et Environnement in Grenoble, France.
Her research has been funded by NOAA, the National Research Council, the US Bureau of Reclamation, and others. She has served as a consultant to documentary film makers interested in her original research on the 1976 Big Thompson flash flood in Colorado. She has served on four National Research Council Committees.
Since 2005 she has developed the WAS *IS movement – Weather and Society Integrated Studies that is changing the cultures of meteorology and hydrology to integrate social science and to be more inclusive of stakeholder needs by facilitating socio-hydro-meteoro-logy efforts by early career scientists and practitioners.
Dr. Gruntfest has all of her degrees in Geography. Her B.A. is from Clark University and her M.A. and Ph.D are from the University of Colorado. She has served on four National Research Council Committees and is the recipient of the Kenneth E. Spengler award from the American Meteorological Society.
That NOAA allowed Tom Karl to masquerade as a Ph.D. is just one clear piece of evidence of a lack of integrity.
We will see if they are serious when the new NOAA Climate Service is operational in 2012 (http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html). In particular, I look forward to them making available the raw and adjusted climate data and all the algorithms used for adjustments. Also, it will be interesting to see the metadata that explains why adjustments were used and any differences in adjustments. Presumably NOAA will use existing data sets for historical data, and if the others are anything like CRU’s (as indicated in the Harry-read-me file), this will not be possible. Clearly indicating the deficiencies of the data sets will be an indication that there is real interest in the goal of transparency.
Buzz, “grown-ups in the room” really, seriously? This would be the same grown-ups who defended tooth and nail “hiding the decline”, “redefining peer review”, instructions to destroy data (which were followed in at least one case), and other questionable (to be charitable) practices? I am uniformly skeptical, which means I do not buy conspiracy theories without solid evidence (which is generally lacking). However, I have seen groupthink in action in my own research field, and if it’s not more active than it should be in climate science, they are doing an excellent imitation of groupthink. Personally, I would at the very least be using lots of hedge words if my models could not explain the lack of warming for the last 13 years, when carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing. It seems to me that Judith Curry is a good example.
REPLY: NOAA climate service lost the latest budget round, they are toast – Anthony
Lubchenco’s demonstrations before congress have demonstrated either sheer scientific incompetence or blatant decepti0n. For instance, she once showed that vinegar dissolved sea shells while water did not, thus she claim this proved the risk of ocean acidification. Sorry Jane, plain water has a lower pH than sea water ever will.
You just never know if they are actually going to view scientific skeptism of the consensus as a bad trait or not. If they do you can just scratch them off as being a science institution and this is just more political posturing.
Buzz Belleville says:
May 23, 2011 at 3:29 pm
“evanmjones — The raw data for every single NOAA temp reconstruction and ‘state of the climate’ report is readily available on line, and their adjustment methods are described in detail at multiple sites including their own.”
I agree with Smokey…let’s see the code. I’ve never understood why they’ve been reluctant to release it. It’s not classified or a state secret, is it? Could it be that it’s another lame, poorly commented piece of FORTRAN junk code like GISTEMP? My guess is that it is, and NOAA doesn’t want anyone to see their “dirty laundry”, as it were. After all, we may start asking questions…
Still more on the NOAA SAB
1. He’s a modeler!
2. He’s got an agenda.
Dr. Kareiva’s research has emphasized mathematical approaches to addressing questions in fisheries, biotechnology risk analysis, conservation, landscape ecology, insect ecology, and climate change science. In his current job Dr Kareiva’s research is focusing on how to map and quantify ecosystem services in a way that can be useful to resource managers and policy leaders. His second focus at TNC is the implementation of monitoring programs that assess the effectiveness of different conservation interventions, and make data available to the public. Dr. Kareiva is also interested in broadening the constituency of conservation, and reaching out to the next generation with information on the natural world, which may require entirely new media and communication approaches. He has supported research on and conducted his own research on the “disconnect between children and nature”.
Robert of Ottawa says:
May 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Science ! NOW WITH INTEGRITY!
…and just introduced… added LONG-LASTING objectivity!
Andrew
Bill Hunter says: May 23, 2011 at 5:43 pm
[Hansen doesn’t work for NOAA…]
but once he gets the final integrity data from NOAA, and applys the neccessary value-add adjustments, it will be clear that he and NASA are actually more than compliant with the newfound integrety.
In fact it will show that there never was a Lost Integrity Aspect (LIA) or a Massive Whitewash Period (MWP) in the history of Climate Scientology.
In stark contrast to Dr. Heidi Cullen claiming today, on ABC World News, that the tornado that his Joplin, Mo was caused by global warming.
Climate Central has this on thier ‘About’ page:
“Polls show low levels of public understanding and concern about climate change. This coincides with an overall drop in topical news coverage. Climate Central fills the void by not only covering climate science and solutions on a local level, but also framing the issues in a larger context.”
It’s no wonder the public has a low tolerance of the climate change rant. If it’s the worst torando season in 60 years, it’s because it happened 60 years ago. Duh.
Hopefully, NOAA can get it’s train back on the track and restore confidence.
Obviously the entire organization is run and staffed by a Buddy Clique which is fully occupied with strengthening and elaborating its own segment of the AGW group think. Science is but a tool for social shaping.
Integrity in that context would require a forthright statement of what they intend to shape us into, and how they intend to do it. Unfortunately, that would interfere with the Project.
rbateman says:
May 23, 2011 at 6:44 pm
“In stark contrast to Dr. Heidi Cullen claiming today, on ABC World News, that the tornado that his Joplin, Mo was caused by global warming.”
You’ve got to be kidding me!! Did she really say that??? And it’s been, what, only 24 hours??
It disgusts me beyond anything I can imagine in this world that someone who ought to know better would use the unimaginable suffering of a small Missouri town to further their own political agenda…
These CAGW maniacs apparently have NO moral or ethical standards whatsoever…
Curious
NOAA makes no reference to “verification” nor to “validation” in its draft.
Compare the NASA IV&V Facility
Now when will <a href=http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/11/nasa-earth-science-advisory-subcommittee/.NASA & NOAA apply V&V to their climate models?
“I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.”
Two words Janey:
EPIC FAIL
Smokey — What “manuals” do you want to see? I don’t understand what you believe is being hidden. I don’t know how NOAA could be more transparent with its raw data.
Frank K. says:
May 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm
In her own words to Diane Sawyer “exactly what we expect to see” in reference to the question “Is this proof of Global Warming?”
I’d like to get the whole transcript.
You be the judge: What did Cullen allude to?
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/joplin-missouri-tornado-deadliest-year-13670115
I’m not sure whether it is just posters using this article as a reason to rant, or whether many truly do not understand why this “policy” is being issued. NOAA is not issuing this policy in order to somehow “restore” an integrity that it hasn’t been meeting (though, admittedly, the tone of the article here does give that impression). NOAA has not been accused of any wrongdoing, never has been in any meaningful way (nit-picky challenges to some of its conclusions notwithstanding).
Rather, NOAA is issuing this policy in response to a directive that Obama issued to all agencies that engage in science. That directive, in turn, was prompted by the suppression of scientific conclusions reached by agencies under the prior administration. Political folks were redacting and rewriting scientific analyses. The conduct was even worse with regard to EPA’s December 2007 endangerment finding, which the Bush administration refused to acknowledge let alone release to the public, issuing instead a highly revised ANPR that would assure the issue got pushed to the next Prez.
The policy being issued by NOAA here is intended to assure that the integrity of scientific communications and conclusions is not impinged by political forces. That’s all … this is NOT an attempt to restore some mysteriously lost integrity.
Buzz Belleville says:
“Smokey — What “manuals” do you want to see? I don’t understand what you believe is being hidden. I don’t know how NOAA could be more transparent with its raw data.”
As I explained to you above: “You answered a question that wasn’t asked; that is misdirection. We want to see their their adjustment code and manuals; everything. Our taxes paid for it. People and organizations hide what they’re afraid to allow others to see. What ever happened to the transparency demanded by the scientific method?”
NOAA is not being transparent: it is not just the data that is being demanded, but the metadata and code. Everything must be disclosed – and NOAA is stonewalling key information from the taxpaying public.
As NOAA’s self-appointed apologist and enabler, how do you justify their withholding of relevant information?
Smokey says:
May 23, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Smokey – maybe Buzz has access to the source codes and manuals for the climate products produced by NOAA!
Buzz – feel free to provide the links to us. We paid for them after all…
> “I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.” Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Great, you can start by investigating why NOAA was previously involved with selectively leaving out weather stations’ temperature data in colder climates over weather stations located in warmer climates. (Which resulted in a warming bias to global temperatures.) Followed by seeing to it, that the aforementioned missing weather stations’ temperature data is inserted into the database located here: ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
rbateman says:
May 23, 2011 at 8:00 pm
You be the judge: What did Cullen allude to?
—
Thanks, rbateman. Ryan Maue has a new post on this topic and I’ll address this report there…
The raw data for every single NOAA temp reconstruction and ‘state of the climate’ report is readily available on line, and their adjustment methods are described in detail at multiple sites including their own.
Buzz, I’m glad to hear that. I’m not adept at searching NOAA’s multiple sites, but I’d appreciate you or anyone else who can answer a simple question. The version 2 USHCN records consist, in many cases, of a record of a current station appended to a record of a previous station. For example, Pearce-Sunsites (026353) is appended to Douglas (022659). Simple question: Since both stations are currently active, at what date did they switch from one station to the other?
Or to create a meta-question, Which NOAA file gives me this information?
Buzz Belleville says:
May 23, 2011 at 1:50 pm
What a sad commentary, not of NOAA, but of the responses thereto on this site.
Motivation for the directive (aimed at all scientific agencies in the federal govt, including NOAA, FDA, USDA and EPA) to implement an “integrity” policy was to prevent the political interference into the scientific process, as happened with the last administration rewriting scientific conclusions, especially as it relates to climate change.
——————–
First and foremost there is little or no need for these multi-billion dollar federal organizations. They are created and just keep growing. The energy and education departments come to mind.
But I have to add………………
You’re kidding Buzz…….right?
This administration…integrity?
You’re kidding…..you gotta be.
EVERYONE dances for their dinner in this world. NASA is a government funded agency. To achieve scientific integrity in NASA one must achieve integrity in the U.S. Congress which is the funding authority for the U.S. government. Rotsa’ ruck on that one!
I am old enough to remember when ‘mission statements’ suddenly become a requirement for every organisation, from youth group committees to merchant banks – about the same time the Western world decided that rampant and unchecked greed was a Good Thing. Mission Statements were a part of the then-new business-speak that laid a gloss of respectability over all manner of deceitful practices that were designed to fatten the decievers and impoverish the vast majority of honest toilers. Even schools were forced to write and to trumpet these apalling chunks of Newspeak deceit. Since that time, a plethora of leech-like organisations have sprung in to being to feed on the spin-offs from the industry of false appearances, all charging good money to confer on public organisations the right to carry their silly and meaningless but very decorative logos and flags on the mastheads of their business stationery.
Rather than fanciful Mission Statements, I would rather see a return to the old-fashioned approach of each organisation writing and then adhering to a sound and honest ethical code of practice. With legally-enforcable teeth.
They’re trying to write an ethics policy?
Here’s a freebie:
Do the right thing.
Don’t lie.
Remember who pays your salary; give them full value… and do the right thing.
I suppose they have a team of a dozen or so people that will work on the policy for months. And I suppose they will write a policy so detailed that “If it isn’t specified in the ethics policy, I didn’t do nuttin’ wrong” will be the outcome.
If you need someone to tell you how to be ethical…
“What a sad commentary, not of NOAA, but of the responses thereto on this site. ”
Sorry! “Once a liar always a liar.”
My sources tell me that Bernie Madoff is to be let out of jail, having promised total financial transparency with respect to a new investment fund concentrating on porcine aerodynamics.
Smokey — Here’s the main link to get you started downloading NOAA’s source code for its weather and climate models:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wct/source.php
Here’s access to source codes for other programs NOAA uses:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/wesley/wgrib.html
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/gps-toolbox/exist.htm
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/waves/wavewatch/wavewatch.shtml
There’s more out there. I’m just truly trying to understand what “codes and manuals” you believe the agency is hiding.
juanslayton — Your question about a particular record for a particular USHCN station is well beyond my knowledge. Questions like that are, however, right within Mr. Watts’ wheelhouse … I’m sure he could answer it.
What exactly triggered this bout of integrity? Could it be the attack of the blogs?
REALLY?? How about starting with real, data-based fisheries management, not handwaving and overextrapolation of statistically insignificant population samples for common fishes?
Yes, I know…too much to ask :/
Buzz Belleville says:
May 24, 2011 at 4:11 am
“Smokey Heres the main link to get you started downloading NOAAs source code for its weather and climate models:”
Errr….No.
“NOAA’s Weather and Climate Toolkit is an application that provides simple visualization and data export of weather and climatological data archived at NCDC. The Toolkit also provides access to weather/climate web services provided from NCDC and other organizations.”
Please note that a data viewer is not a weather or climate model…
The other “software” are similarly irrelevant.
Buzz – what we’re looking for is the source code (or codes) that generate this NOAA data “product”:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Thanks.
If NOAA want to uphold scientific integrity, I think they should change this text:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
Some time ago I and some others did complain, and they have actually changed the text, but it’s still grossly misleading. It still says (with respect to the ice core CO2/temp data):
“When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.”, which is pure Al Gore.
However, they do now mention that ocean temperature changes can affect atmospheric CO2, but they say most of the warming is still due to CO2, due to feedback.
As far as I’m aware, all the evidence shows that CO2 follows temperature with a lag of around 800 years and that there is no evidence in the ice core data of a change in CO2 causing a change in temperature.
If so, the statement on this NOAA web page is still very misleading and even dishonest.
Here’s the full text that appears above the graph:
“One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if the Earth is in radiative balance, and are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice-sheet extent. “
Buzz: juanslayton — Your question about a particular record for a particular USHCN station is well beyond my knowledge. Questions like that are, however, right within Mr. Watts’ wheelhouse … I’m sure he could answer it.
Would that it were so! I doubt, however, that anyone outside the agency can answer it, because I don’t believe the information is ‘readily available on line.’ Of course my conjecture is readily falsifiable. Just point to the file….
When I went to the US government NOAA/NCDC site to verify the data, I found that I could download the data, on PDF only, one month/station at a time. Figure 6000 stations with 100 years data each, 30 days per month, five data elements per day (high, low, precipitation, cloud cover, other) and that 720,000 PDFS, one at a time, and then transcribe the 150 data elements (plus metadata) .
I checked one station’s metadata and it reported 5 station changes, with locations varying in elevation by 50 feet. The monthly handwritten PDFs, however, indicate the weather station in the same back yard since the 1880s, with no change in elevation.
Oh, and the average temperature in 120 years showed a linear regression slope of -0.004 degrees F per year. I didn’t feel ambitious enough to similarly transcribe and analyze the data for another 719,880 monthly PDFs.
Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s ….. a pig!
And that is what will be happening when the NOAA actually gains some integrity.
Bad Andrew says:
May 23, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Robert of Ottawa says:
May 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Science ! NOW WITH INTEGRITY!
…and just introduced… added LONG-LASTING objectivity!
Andrew
=========
That made me laugh, a bit like snipping a box of cereal with “NEW and IMPROVED”.
Announcer: It’s the New and Improved NOAA — now with, Long-Lasting Integrity.
NOAA Logo: fade to black
I don’t see the part about “…, except where we’ve calculated doomsday, in which nobody will be allowed to examine our work. They’ll probably just want to find out if something is wrong with it. ”
Government employees, who are facing idictment, if the right parties find public office, making more smoke cover for themselves, USING the GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS as SCAM PROPAGANDA PRINTING press.
It’s not incompetence, it’s criminal. It has been and it’s nothing more than the matter of so many people being appalled at how much money has been scammed.
Buzz Belleville,
The problem of scientific integrity has nothing to do with the Bush administration – it is intrinsic to post-academic science. Post-academic science is science that fails to be disinterested, the outcomes or research choices of which are dictated by bodies that provide funding because they stand to profit from scientific discoveries (eg in the case of climate science Greenpeace funding because CAGW alarmism feeds the Greenpeace coffers; ditto government funding of CAGW science because money-hungry governments then can justify raising eco-taxes to combat global warming). For a general discussion of the ethical shortcomings of post-academic science see:
Piotr Sztompka “Trust in Science: Robert K. Merton’s Inspirations” Journal of Classical Sociology 7:2 (2007): 211-220.
1. Piotr Sztompka1
Abstract
Trust in science means in effect trust in scholars and their actions. Both the strategic trust based on concrete estimates of trustworthiness and the culture of trust understood as a general imperative to be trustful based on the general presumption of trustworthiness are engendered by the axiological and normative framework typical for the domain of science and known as a scientific ethos. The classical codification of the ethos of science was proposed by Robert K. Merton by means of four principles: universalism, communalism, disinterestedness and organized scepticism. Each of them is shown to facilitate or even evoke the truthful, competent, sincere and honest — in brief: trustworthy — conduct of scholars. The ethos of science and its implication — the trustworthiness of scholars — explain relatively low levels of fraud and plagiarism as compared with other domains. Unfortunately this description is adequate only with respect to the traditional model of `academic science’. In our time we have witnessed the emergence of a different model of science characterized by dependence on huge financial resources, privatization and secrecy of research, commodification of research results, bureaucratization of scientific institutions and instrumentalization of science by subjecting it to extra-scientific interests. In this period of `post-academic science’ Mertonian norms lose some of their binding moral power, and the decay of trust in science is the predictable result. Consequently, the opportunities for, and actual cases of, fraud and plagiarism seem on the increase. To oppose this tendency it is necessary to rejuvenate the ethos of science by returning to Mertonian principles, but at the same time reformulating them in ways more adequate to the current institutional structures of post-academic science.
Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall at http://jcs.sagepub.com/content/7/2/211.short .
Chris Wright says:
May 24, 2011 at 5:46 am
The CO2 v temperature claim just one of many great examples why failed assumptions/conjecture (ie global warming) with government bodies, have to go to great lengths to continue the agenda by misinformation. It has been all over the place over recent years, but seems to be improving because they now know many are noticing it while researching (including the public), while trying to backup scientific claims. Any person with a few brain cells that reads errors like this in a scientific text, knows how awful the evidence must be to have to retort to these tactics. If any on here not sceptical with this misinformation around, then welcome, go and talk to Harold Camping where his followers are less gullible then you.
CO2 v temperature (over recent years, couldn’t have a better correlation) -sarc/off
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/normalise/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:1995/normalise/plot/rss/from:1995/normalise/plot/uah/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1995/trend/plot/rss/from:1995/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/normalise
If Co2 was controlling temperature then global temperatures should be 0.4c higher than now. (showing it’s sensitivity to climate reagarding previous increases in global temperatures)
typo- regarding
p.s. Shouldn’t have included Gistemp because it makes up data, where the others don’t at least where none exists.