Exclusive: Ocean acidification not a current problem, top NOAA scientist insists in FOIA-ed e-mails
JunkScience.com got NOAA scientist e-mails via FOIA? Why can’t Congress? Last October, the New York Times published this dire op-ed on ocean acidification, supposedly authored by NOAA chief Richard Spinrad and his UK counterpart Ian Boyd. First, the op-ed was actually written by NOAA staff Madelyn Applebaum, not Spinrad or Boyd. The purpose was to tout NOAA not inform the public about ocean acidification. Read this brilliant FOIA expose here 18:59
The question arises with these corporate marketing tactics, the public relations spin, the selective culling and presenting of “scientific facts”, and aside from preserving their own funding and therefore their own jobs…what is NOAA doing here? What exactly is the “Agency’s” goal?
This is an agency supposedly working toward the well-being and viability of the Ocean and Atmosphere. Who or what is motivating them to use this kind of manipulation, as outlined in the article, when it comes to information regarding what they’ve produced with their $8+billion annual budget?
If the “scientists” involved are so focused on the way an op-ed comes across in the New York Times that they spend intellectual and emotional capital crafting through a series of emails a “just right” communication; what else are they embellishing or leaving out when it comes to, for instance, their constructs of over-estimating over-fishing and under-estimating under-sea oil spill sediments—that Jane and Dr. Sullivan have signed?