Biden Climate and Environment Deputy Director Sanctioned for Misconduct

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon, Oregon Catalyst, TEWS_Pilot; Biden’s Deputy Director for Climate and Environment Jane Lubchenco has been sanctioned by the National Academy of Sciences, over a code of conduct violation.

White House climate official sanctioned by prestigious science body

The National Academy of Sciences said Jane Lubchenco violated its code of conduct before joining the Biden administration

By Maxine Joselow
August 16, 2022 at 4:08 p.m. EDT

The nation’s most prestigious scientific body said Tuesday that it has barred a key White House official focused on climate change, Jane Lubchenco, from participating in its publications and activities for five years.

The decision by the National Academy of Sciences marks a rare rebuke of Lubchenco, a marine ecologist who serves as deputy director for climate and environment at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The NAS said Lubchenco violated its code of conductbefore joining the Biden administration last year.

While serving as an editor for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Lubchenco accepted an article for publication that was later retracted because it relied on outdated data, and because she has a personal relationship with one of the authors, who is her brother-in-law.

“I accept these sanctions for my error in judgment in editing a paper authored by some of my research collaborators — an error for which I have publicly stated my regret,” Lubchenco said in a statement.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/08/16/white-house-climate-jane-lubchenco/

The retracted paper was Cabral et al., A global network of marine protected areas for food.

The following is a description of Jane’s role in the Biden administration, Deputy Director for Climate and Environment;

Dr. Jane Lubchenco Joins White House Science Team to Lead Initiatives in Climate and Environment Science

MARCH 19, 2021•PRESS RELEASES

Distinguished Scientist and Former NOAA Administrator to Serve as Deputy Director for Climate and Environment at White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Today, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced that Dr. Jane Lubchenco has joined the Biden-Harris Administration as Deputy Director for Climate and Environment

A Distinguished Professor at Oregon State University, Lubchenco previously served as Under Secretary of Commerce and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Obama-Biden Administration.

In this newly created role, Dr. Lubchenco will lead climate and environment science efforts in the White House, bringing an integrated approach that connects climate and environmental challenges with health, economic recovery, equity and sustainability. OSTP is responsible for critical climate and environment science efforts, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the National Climate Assessment.

Lubchenco will work closely with the leadership of OSTP, to which President Biden has nominated Dr. Eric S. Lander to serve as Director and appointed Dr. Alondra Nelson as Deputy Director for Science and Society. In addition, she will collaborate with Biden-Harris Administration science and climate advisors, including White House National Climate Coordinator Gina McCarthy.

“To me, science means hope and opportunity. I’m eager to work with the stellar team at the White House and across the federal government to craft evidence-based solutions to climate and environmental challenges – solutions that produce durable outcomes for people, the nation and the world,” said Lubchenco. “We do not need to choose between the environment and the economy. A healthy environment and a stable climate are the key to both economic recovery and long-term prosperity that is equitable and just. The need for science-based action has never been greater – and we have ample evidence that smart actions can solve multiple problems simultaneously.”

President Biden has committed to tackling climate change as one of his Administration’s highest priorities. By taking bold executive actions aimed at tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad, Biden is dedicated to creating good-paying union jobs and an equitable clean energy future restoring scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking across the federal government, and making environmental justice a part of the mission of every agency.

“The choices we make today will have a lasting impact across generations of future Americans, said Nelson. “I am excited to have the opportunity to partner with Dr. Lubchenco to work toward an equitable future that is prosperous and sustainable for all.” 

As a widely respected environmental scientist who spent four years at the helm of NOAA followed by two years as the State Department’s first U.S. Science Envoy for the Ocean in the Obama-Biden Administration, Lubchenco brings deep experience in science and government. 

Under her leadership in the Obama-Biden Administration, NOAA restored U.S. fisheries to sustainability and profitability, ensured the continuity of the nation’s weather and environmental satellites, delivered climate science and services, strengthened science, influenced the Nation’s first National Ocean Policy, and created a robust NOAA scientific integrity policy. As the first U.S. Science Envoy for the Ocean, she worked with government officials, industry leaders, youth, academics and civil society to advance climate-ready fisheries, sustainable aquaculture, smart ocean planning, and sustainable economic development in China, Indonesia, South Africa, Mauritius and the Seychelles. 

 ### 

For questions or inquiries, please contact mbx.ostp.press@ostp.eop.gov.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2021/03/19/dr-jane-lubchenco-joins-white-house-science-team-to-lead-initiatives-in-climate-and-environment-science/

You would think Jane, who served as NOAA administrator between 2009-13, would know better than to make such an obvious mistake.

No word yet on whether Jane will keep her climate change job at the White House. Perhaps if she stays, she can share an office with Hunter Biden.

5 21 votes
Article Rating
53 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
H.R.
August 17, 2022 10:12 pm

“Oops! My bad. Sorry”

~Jane Lubchenco


*swish* *swish* *swish* [The sound of the MSM sweeping it under a rug]

“She’s addressed it. Let’s move on.”
🙄

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  H.R.
August 18, 2022 7:33 am

No word yet on whether Jane will keep her climate change job at the White House. 

Pentagon generals royally screwed the pooch in Afghanistan and they ALL kept their jobs. I don’t think Jane has anything to worry about.

MarkW
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
August 18, 2022 9:48 am

It wasn’t the generals who screwed the pooch, it was the politicians who set the timeline and set the priorities.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
August 18, 2022 5:57 pm

It was the generals that let them get away with it. A lowly colonel that pointed out the widespread political fecklessness by higher-ups was cashiered. I’m afraid the next war will be over before we can get rid of the incompetents like we had time to do in WWII. And there is a hell-of-a-lot more of them now, the politicized Leftist bastards.

Duker
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 19, 2022 2:19 am

It wasn’t the generals not the politicians it was the VOTERS.
Both Trump and Biden election policy was complete withdrawal, which was underway from Trump’s existing peace treaty.
US troops are also still in Kosovo in heart of Europe still 25 years later from the invasion as there is always a reason to stay

Indur Goklany
Reply to  H.R.
August 18, 2022 4:09 pm

I suspect that they think the “sound” in “sound policy” refers to the amount of noise they make, i.e. the decibel level, rather than policy based on dispassionate analysis.

August 17, 2022 10:17 pm

Is anyone surprised? If it wasn’t for misconduct, climate science wouldn’t be where it is today.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 18, 2022 9:53 am

+100

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 18, 2022 8:29 pm

With apologies to Roy, Buck, and all the rest at Hee Haw:

“If it weren’t for bad stats I’d have no stats at all…”

Derg
August 17, 2022 10:34 pm

She must have failed to secure funding for someone. Even Mann was treated better.

Rod Evans
August 17, 2022 10:46 pm

The Democrat Party’s reputation for sound policy/thinking was already in the gutter, following their advancement of a clearly mentally deteriorating old man into office of President and then accepting a clearly incapable person as his deputy, in the form of Kamala Harris.
Not content with that duo, they decide having a banned from participating in scientific publishing person , Dr Lubchenco as their leader in the White House on matters of climate science.
What is coming next? Hunter Biden to head up the Ethics Committee….

Rod Evans
Reply to  Eric Worrall
August 18, 2022 12:17 am

Eric,
Rik was a great actor comedian, he died far too young. The New Statesman was a great series poking fun at the establishment without censorship robbing it of its irreverence.
Such a series would be impossible to get past the ‘woke’ today.
I would also recommend Black Adder

Eugene McDermott
Reply to  Rod Evans
August 18, 2022 2:07 pm

Also Yes Minister

Nik
Reply to  Eric Worrall
August 18, 2022 4:28 am

Interesting that creators of a Brit sitcom would choose the majestic tune “Simple Gifts” by the American-born Aaron Copeland, the original tune being of Shaker origin.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Nik
August 18, 2022 5:53 am

Which sitcom are you referring to Nik?
The music playing at the start of the New Statesman episode linked here is “Pictures at an Exhibition” by Mussorgsky.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nik
August 18, 2022 8:36 am

That would be no more strange than the tune of the US national anthem being that of an old British drinking song.

Richard Page
Reply to  Eric Worrall
August 18, 2022 9:32 am

Oh yes, ‘The New Statesman’ reboot with Rik Mayall. I have to admit, I quite liked the original pilot with Colin Blakely but Rik Mayall certainly added a manic zaniness that was missing from the original.

Reply to  Rod Evans
August 18, 2022 4:15 am

“Hunter Biden to head up the Ethics Committee….:

Don’t give them any suggestions!
Hunter would be better as a drug czar — lots of experience

Chaswarnertoo
August 17, 2022 10:53 pm

Demonrats lie. Who’d a thunk it?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
August 18, 2022 9:35 am

All politicians lie. It’s in their genes.

MarkW
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 18, 2022 9:51 am

Democrats turn it into an art form.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
August 18, 2022 1:55 pm

Who was it who praised Bill Clinton for being an exceptionally good liar?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
August 18, 2022 6:52 pm

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-01-25-9801250154-story.html

“Clinton’s an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?”

–Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), in a 1995 interview

observa
August 17, 2022 11:30 pm

 She was an inaugural member of President Obama’s “Science Dream Team”. 
JANE LUBCHENCO – Home Page
Off to dreamtime gig again with Noddy.

rah
August 18, 2022 12:01 am

Why should she be different than any of the rest of this administration and supporting deep state?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rah
August 18, 2022 6:59 pm

Yeah, she will fit right in. Her replacement wouldn’t be any better. The Democrats have no talent on their side, especially in the Biden administration, other than their talent for destroying eveything they touch.

H B
August 18, 2022 2:37 am

What a load of spin and bs
“Under her leadership in the Obama-Biden Administration, NOAA restored U.S. fisheries to sustainability and profitability, ensured the continuity of the nation’s weather and environmental satellites, delivered climate science and services, strengthened science, influenced the Nation’s first National Ocean Policy, and created a robust NOAA scientific integrity policy. As the first U.S. Science Envoy for the Ocean, she worked with government officials, industry leaders, youth, academics and civil society to advance climate-ready fisheries, sustainable aquaculture, smart ocean planning, and sustainable economic development in China, Indonesia, South Africa, Mauritius and the Seychelles.”

John in Oz
Reply to  H B
August 18, 2022 6:16 pm

created a robust NOAA scientific integrity policy

It appears she did not read her own policy

John Garrett
August 18, 2022 3:29 am

I can’t seem to find the NPR report on Lubchenco’s sanctioning by the National Academy of Sciences.

August 18, 2022 4:13 am

Abe Lincoln had his Team of Rivals
Jumpin’ Joe Biden has his Gang of Smarmy Leftists

Nik
August 18, 2022 4:21 am

Here’s her Wikipedia page: Jane Lubchenco – Wikipedia

Reads like a Rachel Carson, redux.

From the article: “To me, science means hope and opportunity.”

Oh, boy.

garboard
August 18, 2022 4:26 am

she got caught because of the obvious and outrageous conflicts of interest but her underlying data in her paper were bogus . it doesn’t sound as bad to say she was sanctioned because of conflicts of interest than to say it was because she used fraudulent data

Paul C
Reply to  garboard
August 18, 2022 4:43 am

But, pal review, nepotism, fraudulent models of fake data, editorial gatekeepers, conflicts of interest are all established mainstream processes in climate alarm journals. How was she to know that following what she sees as standard procedures would come back to bite her?

roaddog
August 18, 2022 5:27 am

Harvesting the inherently dishonest fields of NOAA does have its downside.

roaddog
Reply to  roaddog
August 18, 2022 5:48 am

But I do like that she kept satellites in orbit. One wonders how she did that.

Richard Page
Reply to  roaddog
August 18, 2022 8:42 am

Magical thinking and belief obviously. I thought you were aware that ‘gravity’ is an obsolete and racist idea that has no scientific basis in the modern world! sarc

ResourceGuy
August 18, 2022 5:28 am

Only the distinguished science manipulators get ahead in the Democratic Party.

ResourceGuy
August 18, 2022 5:37 am

Maybe she can get work at the Obama Presidential Library……

WSJ
Chicago’s Obama Center Is Under WaterIt doesn’t have the money it promised the city it would raise under a May 2019 master agreement for the Jackson Park property.
We have been fighting the construction of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago’s historic Jackson Park for the past four years. The center, which is scheduled to open in February 2025, is being built in a dangerous place. The water table is high enough to require constant drainage—a peril that will be compounded by major storms off Lake Michigan. An award-winning alternative design on private land west of nearby Washington Park would be less costly and safer to build and would provide far better access to the South Side community that is the center’s target audience.
The Obama Foundation just released its annual report and 990 tax forms for 2021. Together they show that the Obama Presidential Center’s financial foundations are as rickety as its physical ones. The Foundation’s 2020 annual report exhibited some financial candor, estimating that $300 million in annual donations for four straight years would be necessary to meet all future construction and operating costs. The 2021 return revealed that the foundation had raised only $159 million, about 8% less than it raised in 2020. Those dollars must pay for all foundation activities, including payroll, fundraising, public relations, and scholarship and grant programs.
The foundation also reported that last year it spent about $115 million on construction costs, without indicating either the total project construction costs or the estimated timeline to completion. It is crystal clear that no sudden reversal of fortune will allow the foundation to meet its 2020 targets (adjusted for inflation) of raising more than $1 billion.
Last year the foundation needed to do some fancy accounting footwork to close on the Jackson Park property. A May 2019 master agreement with the city contained two strict “condition precedents.” Under the first condition, the foundation had to certify that it had “received” more money than the anticipated cost of the building as of March 2021. The foundation barely appeared to meet that target, but then insisted that it wasn’t required to retain those dollars for constructing the building. What, then, was the point of the condition? As its own cost estimates ballooned from $350 million in 2018 to about $700 million in 2021, the foundation ignored its contractual obligation to update its financial projections before closing.
Under the second condition set by the city, the foundation promised to establish an endowment to cover the center’s operating, maintenance and improvements. In 2020 the foundation claimed the first year of operations alone would cost $40 million, and that it needed to raise $470 million for such endowment. In June 2021 the foundation contributed a mere $1 million to the endowment, thereby ignoring the universal accounting convention that bare promises to raise money never constitute an endowment: Cash and firm pledges are always required.
The foundation’s failure to meet these two conditions meant that the 2021 property transfer should never have happened.
The nonprofit Protect Our Parks, which we represent, has challenged these actions in pending litigation. In January U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey rebuffed our challenge by holding, incorrectly, that Protect Our Parks sued as if it were a party with rights under the master agreement. In fact, our submissions made clear that we sought to block the transfer solely in our capacity as Chicagoans. Procedural obstacles have prevented an immediate appeal of this ruling without the district court’s approval, which was requested and denied.

MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 18, 2022 9:55 am

Laws are for the little people.

Jtom
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 18, 2022 2:16 pm

Don’t worry. I’m sure the funds needed will be in the next Democratic budget passed by Congress, plus a little extra to keep democratic donors happy.

Reply to  Jtom
August 18, 2022 11:17 pm

Unlikely. While Socialists/Communists are terrible at calculating ROI on business decisions, they are expert at doing so for political figures. Throwing money at Obama is no longer a good investment.

Quilter52
August 18, 2022 5:41 am

Clearly senior enough to know that her behavior was totally unethical but nothing to see here, let’s move on. How does she keep her job if the “what’s my name again?” president was running an honest administration.

Richard Page
Reply to  Quilter52
August 18, 2022 8:46 am

It’s precisely that seniority that appears to be the problem. It appears that she felt she was above the petty rules and laws of the little people and should not be bound by them. I can’t help feeling we’ve seen that before somewhere.

oeman 50
August 18, 2022 5:50 am

I recalled her giving a “demonstration” years ago to explain ocean “acidification.” She demonstrated that CO2 causes acidity by dropping a piece of dry ice into water and watching a color change from an acid-base indicator. That is a foolish demonstration because that does not mimic what happens in the ocean, not even close. Then she proceeds to put CaCO3 (chalk) in a vinegar solution to demonstrate that bubbles form. I’m wondering why she did not use HCl. It would have been faster, more dramatic and just as false.

Lubchenco video ocean acidification at DuckDuckGo

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  oeman 50
August 18, 2022 7:18 am

I remember seeing that embarrassing ‘lecture.’ Thought was this could only be that she was a victim, and I do mean victim, of the oxymoron “affirmative action/equal opportunity.” It codified from was being quietly done to help bright disadvantaged individuals to a top-down quota type system.This was at the same time that grants needed lots of lab assistants. Now we have “equity/‘(un)’sustainability.” Not the only problem but explains incompetence.

MarkW
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
August 18, 2022 9:57 am

The Minneapolis teacher’s union has reached an agreement with the city whereby in the coming downsizing, only white teachers will be fired.

Mary Brown
August 18, 2022 6:49 am

Couldn’t happen to a nicer person [SARC]. She is like the poster child for everything wrong with climate science.

Shoki Kaneda
August 18, 2022 7:42 am

The entire Biden administration is guilty of misconduct.

Gordon A. Dressler
August 18, 2022 10:19 am

Biden certainly knows how to pick ’em and vet ’em.

/sarc off

Paul C
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 18, 2022 10:52 am

I hear that Biden vetting consists of a sniff and smell test. Touching may also be involved.

Andy Pattullo
August 18, 2022 1:34 pm

If every person in a position of academic authority was sanctioned for similarly unethical and/or incompetent performance we would empty out most of the universities, and perhaps be far better off for it. Rather than finding all the offenders, it would be much easier just to list the few who abide by an internal moral compass and the tenets of scientific investigation.

Steve Oregon
August 19, 2022 8:53 am

Her entirely fabricated AGW ocean dead zones & “osteoporosis of the sea” ocean acidification claims are far worse.
She has never been confronted or challenged over these frauds.
And they continue to be the basis for massive spending & lavish lifestyles for crooked academia.

%d bloggers like this: