Apparently NASA should start distributing dictionaries to the authors of its press releases.
Here is the title of the July 24, 2012 NASA press release reporting on recent ice melt across the surface of Greenland:
“Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt”
And here is a quote from within the release:
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
Now, according to our version of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, “unprecedented” is defined as:
“having no precedent: NOVEL, UNEXAMPLED”
“without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled: an unprecedented event.”
So, while it may be meteorologically interesting that a series of high pressure ridges had passed over Greenland this summer with largest and warmest of these parking over the island for a few days in mid-July and raising the temperature to near the melting point of ice all the way up to the summit of Greenland’s ice cap—it is not a type of event which is unique. Rare perhaps, but not unprecedented.
But, apparently, when it comes to hyping anthropogenic global warming (or at least the inference thereto), redefining English words in order to garner more attention is a perfectly acceptable practice.
Which brings to mind this oldy but goody from the late Stephen Schneider:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
At NASA, apparently being honest is not considered as being the most effective.