Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Krishna Gans / NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat; New boss appointed, immediately receives an email from an employee telling him what he is allowed to do. Employment terminated.
Top NOAA scientist is removed from his position after he asked new Trump-appointed staff to adhere to the agency’s integrity policy that bans changing research data to fit political agenda
- NOAA acting chief scientist Craig McLean was removed from his position in September
- McLean was forced to step down from his role after emailing new Trump appointees about the agency’s ethics policy, according to a NYT report
- The NOAA scientific integrity policy prohibits fabrication, falsification, or the manipulation of research data to fit a political agenda
- McLean’s email drew a sharp response from Erik Noble, the agency’s new Trump-appointed chief of staff
- Noble the following morning informed McLean he would no longer serve as the agency’s acting chief scientist
- He was replaced by Dr Ryan Maue, a climate change critic and former researcher for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank
By KAREN RUIZ FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 01:35 AEDT, 29 October 2020 | UPDATED: 23:00 AEDT, 29 October 2020
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s top scientist has been removed from his position after he asked new Trump-appointed staff to acknowledge the agency’s scientific integrity policy, according to a new report.
Craig McLean, the agency’s acting chief scientist, was dismissed from his role last month shortly after sending an email to the new political appointees, including former White House adviser Erik Noble, the New York Times reported.
McLean had reportedly asked them to respect the NOAA’s scientific integrity policy which prohibits fabrication, falsification and manipulation of research data driven to fit a political agenda.
…
Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8888735/Trump-administration-fires-NOAA-scientist.html
NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat points out that, by their own now AWOL published numbers (see top of page), NOAA’s temperature records have been subject to some intriguing and substantial hockey stick shaped data manipulations over the years, a practice which apparently continued on Craig McLean’s watch.
Update (EW): Just to clarify, McClean’s employment as chief scientist was terminated, as far as I know he still works for NOAA.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Saying “the NOAA” just doesn’t sound right.
It’s like saying “the NASA”.
Sure, if you just stop at those two words. In context that it’s being used, it perfectly legit grammar. As a grammar Nazi, you should know better. shame, shame.
Please note that NOAA’s USHCN data manipulation graph shown at the top of this article is only through 2000, and they have since added huge amounts of warming to the raw data over the past 20 years, which NOAA no longer wishes to report..
This NOAA USCHN data manipulation graph was deleted from NOAA’s website soon after Trump was sworn into office in January 2017…
I wonder why?
Updated to 2020 on Tony Heller’s site:
And again with more detailed explanation of how the “corrections” scale directly with CO2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4gC9E_3iU
Funny that!
Climate models predict the something that cannot happen. They show equatorial ocean waters increasing well beyond 305K – a physical impossibility in Eath’s atmosphere.
You would think that they would check why their models are showing tropical ocean warming but moored buoys show no change this century or last century since they were installed:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3LJuByjstkozrzc
This is a key indicator of where climate models and reality part.
Thanks for the link to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and that wonderful (Final minus Raw) chart. I hadn’t seen it in a while.
What a coincidence.
For years I’ve praised the work of NOAA’s “Tides and Currents” team, saying things like this:
But ten days ago I discovered that I can no longer honestly say that about them. Sometime between July & September, 2018 the NOAA CO-OPS Tides and Currents team quietly added a new, brazenly unscientific feature to their sea-level analysis pages, which they call “Regional Scenarios.” It is based on an internal junk-science study of the hypothetical effects of preposterous projections of wildly accelerated sea-level rise. Take a look (I added the green and pink annotations):
That’s as bad as the blatant climate alarmist propaganda on NOAA’s ridiculous “Is sea level rising?” page. That page begins with a flat-out lie (“sea level is rising at an increasing rate”), and goes downhill from there, with multiple false statements.
I don’t know how NOAA is organized, but their “tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov” site used to be much better than that. I presume that the “tidesandcurrents” and “oceanservice” sites were run by different people. Even when the “oceanservice.noaa.gov” site was publishing brazen propaganda, you still could trust the data and analyses from the “tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov” site. I cannot express how disappointed I am that that’s no longer true. ☹️
Dave, it would be interesting to have a study relating the alarmist hype to political events over time, like elections, international meetings of UN Lysenko science meetings, etc. I think it would show remarkable coordination of institutions, scientific journals, and the usual sciency suspects in the meme. I think it was Roy Spencer a few years ago, pointed out publications of ‘impactful’ papers that were submitted one week and published the next week to be out there for inclusion in IPCC reports, COP meetings and so on. If I recall correctly he was comparing this to the prolonged gauntlet he has to go through to get a new version of UAH temperature series published.
Also this rainbow foolishness on NOAA’s site should be brought to the new boss’s attention. It clearly is the work ordered by McClean. His rude letter is a ‘tell’ that he knows the agencies data and hype will stick out like a sore thumb.
On the one hand, McClean was simply stating the obvious.
On the other hand, it sounds like he treated the new appointee with contempt, perhaps based on a strong dislike for Trump. Who lectures their new boss on ethical behavior before they’ve even unpacked? That’s not respectful.
Fire all the politicians pretending to be scientists and replace them with young scientists that have no skin in the game…then see where the RAW data leads.
Make sure a policy is created and enforced that prevents these young scientists from any public participation in activist movements or speaking outside of established channels – doing so results in your being fired as you are declaring your bias. Focus on the science, not the emotional appeal of the Greenies. Go through regular review/publication processes.
You want to become an activist, leave NOAA first.
The problem is too many of the young scientists are being indoctrinated in the gospel of Gaia and no longer are taught to follow the data. Thumbs on the scale in support of dogma is rampant in academia.
Absolutely!
Nonetheless, I feel a certain sympathy for young scientists who discover that the only way to further their careers is to toe the Party line. The politicisation of science is a long-term calculated policy of Those Who Rule to ensure that scientists deliver palatable results.
A determination to follow where the evidence leads and draw only warranted conclusions (you know! — what science is supposed to be) is a shortcut to either penury or a radical career/attitude change. As Napoleon observed: “The surest way to remain poor is to be an honest man.”
My comment on Paul Homewood’s iste:
McLean was involved with the dust-up about DJT’s tweets in September of 2019 regarding the path of Hurricane Dorian. As I recall, someone in Trump’s circle was way behind the weather info, made an error that ‘the Donald’ made famous.
The result was an Agency and media storm that should have been no more than a little “dust devil” blowing through a backyard picnic.
McLean was likely correct regarding this episode, but handled it poorly.
So, his leadership style is not likely the best, regardless of his experience.
“As I recall, someone in Trump’s circle was way behind the weather info, made an error that ‘the Donald’ made famous.
The result was an Agency and media storm that should have been no more than a little “dust devil” blowing through a backyard picnic.”
My recollection is Trump was accurate in his depiction of the hurricane’s possilbe path.
I remember seeing one of the several Hurricane Dorian paths projected just as the president had said. Then the media made fun of him, but there was a prediction broadcasted that showed the hurricane following the path in question. the media still won’t admit that the president was correct. They won’t admit that Biden lied about fracking either, but I am not as shocked as the police chief in Casa Blanca.
Regarding the adjustment to USHCN data: Judith Curry seems to consider this as mostly justified. One reason is a change to weather station technology that gives lower daily high temperature readings. https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
Even if there is a difference between values on different equipment, which in itself throws doubt on the temperature records, without a minimum of running the two in parallel you’re just guessing.
Change of equipment plus time of observation bias are almost the entire correction. You can see the progression in the NOAA supplied graph found in a number of places probably, but I have one here on the first page.
Also, note the order of corrections shown immediately below the graph, and contemplate that by homogenizing before making a UHI correction they may have simply spread UHI though all stations making it no longer correctable.
My problem is that all these adjustments are done for one reason and one reason only, to try and find data that supports a rising Global Average Temperature increase. Then the homogenized and adjusted temperatures are pawned off as true temperatures.
A bone of contention is UHI removal. This is real heat, albeit not “CO2 direct back radiation” caused. Removing this gradient from the temperature record is not scientific. Worse portraying the modified temperature data as “real” is also unethical. At the very least NOAA should qualify the data as modified and that it may not be fit for purpose in other scientific endeavors.
Jim and Kevin …
I share Jim’s objection to the “FINAL” being called “real.” It is a model, not a temperature record. The justification is the supposed quest to model the measured data into a constructed number that stands for “the average temperature.” I contend the correct question is not “what is the average US (or global) temperature at a given moment, but rather: “Is there any abnormal warming evident in the RAW data.”
“I share Jim’s objection to the “FINAL” being called “real.””
And I object to calling actual temperature readings “raw” as if they are not finished, and need computer manipulation to add accuracy.
Yes, the “raw” label for the unaltered direct measurement tables does have that halo of “needs work.” It would be better if the ‘raw’ zips were labeled “reported’ or ‘base’ or ‘direct’ and the “FINAL” tables were called “Adjusted” or “Reconstructed.”
I do use “Raw” at my website, only because that agrees with the name of the zip files in NOAA’s repository, as seen here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5
It is a miracle that the “raw” zips are available at all. I wonder why they are — did a more conservative authority in NOAA fight a battle for it, or perhaps there remains an element of fairness?
I understand this email as meaning: “Don’t you Trump appointees dare try to correct any of the data we have retroactively faked over the years.”
The graph is well known for those who follow Tony Heller.
Tony ‘make it up’ Heller who even Anthony Watts has asked to desist from misrepresentation in the past?
You misrepresented everything, always.
Never stopped you.
In what way has Tony Heller misrepresented the information in the graph?
You are just yapping behind your 6ft fence again, griff.
‘he asked new Trump-appointed staff to adhere to the agency’s integrity policy that bans changing research data to fit political agenda’
so what you are saying is that Trump appointees feel it is OK to change research data to fit a political agenda. Aren’t you?
Griff, first try reading the comments before making yours. You might avoid making yourself look stupid (but probably not). Secondly, what would the impact be if you sent your new boss an email saying it was against company policy to submit an inflated expense report? I suspect the implication of dishonesty would not be well received by him.
And, Griff, please be advised that comments from people in the pay of foreign governments trying to disrupt western civilization are not welcome.
“change research data”
You mean to REMOVE all the manic politically based mal-adjustments by AGW zealots, don’t you griff.
They can’t change the research data much more than it has already been changed. !
Best to go back to the RAW data.. if it hasn’t all been erased.
Oh wait there.. that’s what Tony Heller does, much to the EMBARRASSMENT of the AGW fakers.
Griff ought to go over to Tony Heller’s website and try to straighten him out about the temperature record. Griff seems to think he knows better than Tony.
Hasn’t the NOAA been throwing logs on the Global-Whatever movement for years? They have an “integrity policy”? Most Government agencies are well stocked with Trump-haters who have a flexible integrity to say the least. In any case, this is a very incomplete report that omits some important info.
What I find most intriguing about the top graph is that it implies people in the past were much better at taking readings than people today.
The way I read that regulation is that you cannot change data for POLITICAL reasons, but you can “adjust” it for “scientific” reasons, you just have to be careful to say it was “science”. So unless Trump wins the manipulation and fabrication will continue to match the CO2 increase as a 97% correlation displayed in Heller’s website shows.
Chutzpah is a treasured trait in the NYC metropolitan area. McLean learned it growing up in Rutherford, annealed it at Rutgers, and cultivated it in government service. It’s no wonder that the nyt would recognize his gross insubordination as laudable.
NOAA’s numbers and reports have been questionable for years and on a number of occasions they have not been able to provide data that supports they assessments. They need new blood in the systems to break the propaganda values and verify the data in their reports..
“He was replaced by Dr Ryan Maue, a climate change critic”
I read this all the time!
“climate change critic” is the WRONG way to describe people like Ryan or myself.
It plays right into the fake “denier” narrative.
We are absolutely NOT critics or deniers of climate CHANGE.
We believe in climate change.
Most of us may not even be critics of human caused climate change. I believe that humans are responsible for, maybe half of the beneficial global warming and that we are having a climate OPTIMUM for most life on this greening planet because of climate CHANGE.
I’ll let this tweet from Dr. Maue in September, speak for itself to illustrate the point:
Ryan Maue@Ryan Maue
Sep 12
“As the climate warms, the oceans further north especially in the North Atlantic will be more hospitable or friendly to hurricanes. And, as we know, hurricanes at higher latitudes (> 30°N) move quickly b/c steering currents (+jet influences) are much stronger than the trades.”
This was with regards to the topic below:
“An increase in global trends of tropical cyclone translation speed since 1982 and its physical causes”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9e1f
His objective was/is to EDUCATE people about the REAL affects of climate change on hurricanes based on the REAL world.
He clearly sees the REAL global warming, which by definition is climate change.
Any position that would be filled by Dr. Maue would result in benefits to those affected by his role, as he brings objective, reality based science to the plate every time with elite level understanding and explanations.
What’s a better description than climate change critic?
Dr. Maue probably has his personal preference but I like these:
“climate crisis skeptic”, “climate crisis critic” and “climate realist”
Here’s a good one: “Authentic scientist” (-:
BTW,
Dr Maue’s point was to counter the stalled and slower moving hurricanes from climate change, causing more excessive rains narrative……………by applying authentic/objective, reality based science/data and usually supported by common sense, physical world reasoning.
I smell a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy here. (If B followed A, B must have been caused by A.)
An “acting” position is by definition temporary. Of course a new agency head is going to bring in his own people in key position under him. In this case, he replaced a BA-level environmental scientist with a PhD climate scientist.
This whole dustup looks like a purely political play to make an absolutely standard and justifiable personnel decision look questionable.
I’ve learned a lot over the last 4 years about moles in the agencies. I guess I knew they were there but was never sure how they would present themselves over time. Certainly I’ve learned a lot about the under (handed) side of the FBI over the years and that leads to thinking about the other agencies.
NOAA have been homogenizing and interpolating data for ages. What is that except fabrication, alteration, and manipulation of data? When a lefty does it they call it alteration, when someone they don’t like does it it’s falsification.
Being unaware that CO2 is not a pollutant and is required for all life on earth is science ignorance.
Failure to discover that CO2 has no significant effect on climate but water vapor does is science incompetence. (WV has been increasing faster than possible from feedback)
Changing measured data to corroborate an agenda is science malpractice.
Here is the USHCN Raw verses Final TMAX 1918 to 2019, which shows how the raw (actual temperature readings) have been computer-manipulated into the “adjusted” temperauture anamoly.
Obviously, the actual temperature readings show that it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today, but the Data Manipulators took the actual temperature readings and put them in their computer and cooled the 1930’s, and out came a “hotter and hotter” temperature chart that fits the Human-caused Climate Change narrative where we are living in the hottest time in human history The actual temperature readings tell a completely different story. That story says it is no warmer today than in the recent past and therefore, CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Here’s a link to an article on Heller’s site about data manipulation:
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/02/the-superbowl-of-data-tampering/#respond
Here is how the NOAA ethics game works. The workaday run of the mill ‘scientists’ at NOAA are largely left leaning. They bake their bias into the results. The Ethics Rules give them a shield to prevent the political appointees from calling them out on their bogus work on its way to publication. The good lawyer/scientist was just reminding the new boss that the inmates run this particular asylum.