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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.