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.
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.