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.
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