NOAA corrects NYT over ‘ending their climate mission’ story

People send me stuff. This came from a NOAA employee today. It seems the New York Times goofed, and didn’t confirm their story before running with it. #FakeNews

In reaction to the NYT article yesterday that was all in a panic about a presentation that RDML Gallaudet gave that didn’t list climate as a top priority of NOAA, Gallaudet has sent out the following email to all NOAA employees:


June 25, 2018

Last week, I gave a presentation at an internal meeting within the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) where I shared some of my thoughts on NOAA. My presentation, which was not reviewed by the Office of the Secretary prior to the meeting, was intended to share new ways NOAA could augment the DOC’s strategic plan. It was not intended to exclude NOAA’s important climate and conservation efforts, which are essential for protecting lives and the environment. Nor should this presentation be considered a final, vetted proposal.

Secretary Ross, the Department, and I support NOAA’s mission to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts; to share that knowledge and information with others; and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. We are also fully aware of the congressional mandates and will continue to adhere to them.

With gratitude and respect,

RDML Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., USN Ret.
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and
Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “NOAA corrects NYT over ‘ending their climate mission’ story

    • I’m sure if I were a reporter I might expect the NOAA to announce a major change in their mission in some minor presentation. Heck, I probably wouldn’t even ask a single clarifying question of the presenter to make sure that my interpretation was accurate.

  1. I think NOAA is in the process of getting its priorities in order again. More funding and research needs to go into model guidance to keep up with those in Canada and Europe. This where more attention is needed. Also, it would be nice to see more case studies of weather events such as heat bursts – http://texasstormwatch.com/2018/06/night-of-the-heat-bursts-in-north-texas.html . The number of case studies on derechos, tornadoes, meso-convective systems, and other weather events that happen on a regular basis has decreased since the early 2010’s.

  2. Never in my life….would I have imagined witnessing a political party, news media, and organizations….
    and even countries
    …so hell bent on self destruction

    Trump says fake news…and what do they do….double down on it!

  3. I hope the shock waves of that report kicked some administrative folks out of their chairs and they are going to realize that the “good ol’ times” may be coming to an end.

    • Click on the “ENSO meter gadget” and it goes to that chart.

      It, the ENSO meter gadget, is a link, not a chart.
      An internet person can explain the technical stuff; I think it was explained a year ago. ‘I really don’t care. Do U?’

      • Oops, I forgot to check last night. It looks like the meter has been broken since June 3rd or so. The BoM started rejecting my page fetches for no obvious reason. The simplest way to fix it was to fetch http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/nino_3.4.txt with a different program that was accepted and pass it the to Python program.

        One reason I wasn’t too concerned before is that the ENSO data was pretty static until a couple weeks ago:

        20180514,20180520,0.13
        20180521,20180527,0.15
        20180528,20180603,0.13
        20180604,20180610,0.15
        20180611,20180617,0.30
        20180618,20180624,0.48

  4. It amuses me how much the Greenies get their panties in a bunch when a presentation, any presentation to any audience, fails to mention “climate”. Keep up the good work!

  5. Seems much more logical. NOAA should design the experiments. Figure out what data they need and how to get it. NASA should be in the business of figuring out how to get the data gathering instruments into position, assuming, of course that the data gathering instruments need to be in or above the atmosphere.

  6. If it was an internal meeting, someone leaked it. And did a poor job of sharing the facts, or the NYT ignored anything that did not align with its ideology.

    • “a President who has declared war on the free press”

      No, Trump has declared war on the Fake, Partisan, Dangerous news organizations and reporters who continually distort reality for political purposes.

      Trump *likes* honest reporters.

      There is a very great difference between a Free Press and the Leftwing News Media Propaganda organ currently posing as the Free Press.

      Trump hasn’t shut the Leftwing News Media down and he hasn’t thrown any reporters in jail, he just calls them liars when they lie.

      Of course liars don’t like being called out on their lies, which just adds to the hatred the Leftwing News Media feels for Trump driving them into a frenzy in their desire to harm and bring down the president.

      The Radical Left including the Leftwing News Media is living in a completely different reality than the rest of us. A very ugly place indeed. A hate-filled place. A violent place. A place a rational person would not want to be.

  7. More than anything else, the NYT article presents a picture of confusion among scientists about the nature of the presentation and what it means for the agency. It should have mentioned that. The WUWT article left out a key quote:

    “When asked for comment, Dr. Gallaudet said in a statement that the presentation was ‘a simplified draft for discussion.’

    “‘It was not intended to create change in NOAA mission or policy from what it was before,’ he said. ‘Any interpretation to the contrary is simply inaccurate.’”

    That’s pretty direct, I’d say. I’m guessing it’s more a matter of changing words to cater to the Trump administration than a real change in mission. I’d also speculate that scientists like Trenberth were responding to the rumor mill, but who knows?

    NYT was at fault for making more of the presentation than it warranted, especially in the title. That was obvious from the content of the article. At least they said it “may” signify change, rather than assert that it was actually happening, so technically it wasn’t “fake news,” but just a biased presentation. Anthony was at least as guilty of “fake news” in the way he presented the NYT article. Had it been me, I would have pointed out that it was a case of alarmism from the outset, but he instead chose to echo it.

    ///////////////
    Followed a link to a story about Pruitt’s deregulation. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-rollbacks.html
    Turns out the EPA is making such a poor legal, economic and scientific case for trashing the regulations that Pruitt’s attempts are getting shot down in court. Whew! It was beginning to seem like a U.S. President could just change whatever he wanted when it came to environmental protection – even end it. Is that why Obama fought to make it legally nonbinding, so it couldn’t be called a treaty and he wouldn’t need Congressional approval? I can see how conservatives would be mad about that.

    • Just accepting your basic premise for a moment – this whole post is a nice illustration of the progressive mind, and the utter blindness to the presumptions inherent within it.
      It’s a concept of ‘forced equality’ or ‘fairness’ that isn’t really. It’s forced equal outcome – which is no kind of fairness at all.
      This is the repeating pattern and it’s absolutely ALWAYS one way. It is, ‘attack’ and then ‘defense’.
      The NYT runs an attack piece – WATTS defends it. And even if the WATTS treatment, just for sake of argument, was somehow ALSO ‘alarmist’, it’s still the difference between a punch and a counter-punch – and if someone’s hitting you low, you hit back low. But to say they are both equally at fault simply isn’t true. ONE was the instigator, the other was a response.
      And there is constant instigation one-way. And none of the instigators ever seem to feel the stones they throw – they just cry about the ones thrown BACK.
      What we have in the Global Warming scare is so far beyond the basic science, it’s almost irrelevant. The Progressive left has used the issue to pimp every issue possible, villainization of capitalism, the US in particular, the white race (men especially), the Christian religion, prosperity in general (unless it can somehow be transferred to those more deserving), and basically a daily condemnation our entire way of life – I’m told I owe a blood debt to every impoverished or persecuted people. That our prosperity was ‘stolen’ – apparently a justification for simply giving it all away – to be ‘fair’. Hell, according to Barrack Obama, I’M not even supposed to be able to set my thermostat where I want it.
      He also, quite laughably said, “It’s time to stop blaming the Unites States for all the world’s woes.”
      Like he did every day of his life, before and since?
      But apparently Obama wasn’t offensive because he talked in faculty room jargon rather than Donald Trump’s dock-worker straight-talk.
      And Obama also gave you – wait for it – enemies to hate. A caricature that it was okay to throw stones at. In fact, it was good an proper to throw stones at THOSE people because they’re destroying the planet, right? And if those that don’t see it that way – that say, don’t buy your particular version of the ‘End of Times’ story, or your concepts of sin an expiation – that say, fight back… well, that makes them immoral by nature, right?
      A defense is not an attack. I’m not a conservative, but I can clearly see who is attacking who, and who is defending. Listened to Maxine Waters, much lately?
      I’ve been apolitical most of my life, but that outside-the-group position, provides a clear vantage point, and my objective opinion is that the progressive movement, with AGW as it’s religion, is an enemy to this country. What Progressivism is really, is a parasitical ideology – a strangle-weed that sets itself in opposition to every institution that makes a society work, attacking its traditions, it’s icons, its history, handicapping resources,, crippling its productivity, sucking its wealth dry, and retarding the potential of citizens by forcing equality of outcome. And, of course, it’s energy sector.
      What it is, then at it’s essence, is destruction – which is a natural turn of mind for radicals – they think generationally – their job, right NOW, is to destroy the existing society – they don’t really worry much about what comes after – Creation is beyond them.
      Creation/Destruction. Kind of a basic argument, isn’t it? I guess you have to ask yourself, which side are you on?
      My own personal litmus test is that I always find myself defending people’s basic rights and freedoms – to live how they choose – and most importantly, their right to exist at all, against someone trying to take those rights away.
      By people who say they can control the weather, no less. Because that’s REALLY what you’re selling here. And that’s a pretty old con too.
      Again, you have to ask what side are YOU on?

    • This silly “point/counterpoint” is ridiculous. All this ink spilled (figuratively) over a crappy NYT article is a terrible bore, and I’m proud of myself for only reading a few lines of it. This blind adherence to ideology on both sides is an illustration of how this country has devolved into shouting at each other, where there is not a single merit to the other side’s argument.

      It should be obvious to the participants in this mindless game that no one is changing anyone else’s mind about anything – so what’s the point? The object of a discussion is persuasion – which ain’t what we’re reading here.

      • Incorrect. Discussion leading to a neutral state or reasonable compromise is possible, helpful, and in woefully short supply these days. Trying to understand the other side without demanding their capitulation, without demanding that there must be a winner and a loser, is how you combat extremism, on all sides. Plato himself recognized not only the concepts of thesis and antithesis, but also synthesis.

  8. Prediction: The next fake news out of the NY Times will be the end of legal abortion should Trump’s nominee be confirmed by the Senate. It doesn’t matter who he nominates. A number of liberals have already voiced this opinion. They ignore the fact that many current conservative judges are on record saying that Roe v Wade is established law. But they have to gin up support for Democrat candidates somehow. And nothing works better at driving liberals to the polls than a threat to their right to kill off their own offspring.

Comments are closed.