Last refuge of a climate scoundrel: NOAA issues 'scientific integrity' manual

Amid the still smouldering ruins of alarmist climate science, NOAA grasps for legitimacy by issuing a scientific integrity manual.

But of course, ethics can’t be taught — you either got ’em or you don’t. And we know where NOAA and its “scientists” have stood on the matter.

Check out NOAA’s draft Scientific Integrity Manual and Procedural Handbook (for reporting scientific misconduct) and let us know what you think/find.

4 thoughts on “Last refuge of a climate scoundrel: NOAA issues 'scientific integrity' manual”

  1. I have scanned the document. It appears to be mostly a CYA document, rife with generalitis and statements of ‘policy’ and such. There are no detailed definitions or provisions for enforcement.
    Section 4 was quite informative:
    4.01 refers to the NOAA “strategic vision of healthy ecosystems, communities, and economies”, which betrays NOAA’s true mission – control of the people who affect the ecosystem and who participate in the community and the economy. Nothing about the “oceans” or the “atmosphere.”
    4.03 gives lip service to a ‘culture of openness – yadda yadda yadda – but hidden between the lines of 4.05 is the agenda to pack the professional societies, review panels, assessment bodies, etc. with their own hand-picked ‘experts.’ These will be supported with tax dollars and will be enabled to perform ‘steering’ functions for the whole ‘scientific’ community by simply being able to afford to do things that private, corporate, and low-level academic workers (grad students) can’t afford to do.
    Ditto 4.06 – I quit reading in disgust at this point. This is not about ‘scientific integrity.’ – It is “Mein Kampf” for government-funded environmental activism.

  2. I was in Regulation for 21 years. Packed it in as soon as I could. You had to check your brain at the door and kiss the dumb ass environmental organization’s ass, whether they were right or wrong. Usually the latter.

  3. Ironic. I sarcastically posted on another site that the solar minimum news would result in government regulation of science so that it would produce more consistent results in support of government planning that “science was created to support.”. And now we find a manual has already been drafted. Can the creation of a Scientific Protection Agency be that far off – complete with a website for the public to comment on what “scientific justice” (instead of the EPA’s environmental justice) means to them.

    I’m tellin’ ya, if you want a secure career in a growth industry, regulation is absolutely the way to go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.