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.
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.