The NCDC press office sent an official response to Politifact, which is below.
The NCDC has not responded to me personally, I only got this by asking around.
I’ve provided it without comment.
=====================================================
Are the examples in Texas and Kansas prompting a deeper look at how the algorithms change the raw data?
No – our algorithm is working as designed. NCDC provides estimates for temperature values when:
1) data were originally missing, and
2) when a shift (error) is detected for a period that is too short to reliably correct. These estimates are used in applications that require a complete set of data values.
Watts wrote that NCDC and USHCN are looking into this and will issue some sort of statement. Is that accurate?
Although all estimated values are identified in the USHCN dataset, NCDC’s intent was to use a flagging system that distinguishes between the two types of estimates mentioned above. NCDC intends to fix this issue in the near future.
Did the point Heller raised, and the examples provided for Texas and Kansas, suggest that the problems are larger than government scientists expected?
No, refer to question 1.
==================================================
NUTS…
Back to You…
Worked once, not so sure it works out as well this time.
“No – our algorithm is working as designed”
again, no mention of zombie stations and no mention of stations that are reporting data having their data substituted for made up data….
As long as you let them control the conversation…this is the answer they plan on giving
I didn’t realize the similarity between the NCDC and the Emperor Penguins. Namely, they both leave streaks on the ground where they have tread. And the streaks are made of the same material.
I don’t expect them to admit any flaws.
“Did the point Heller raised… suggest that the problems are larger than government scientists expected?”
If it’s government work, large problems are always expected.
Would like to see the letter you sent to NCDC regarding this issue, which they failed to respond to…
So does this mean that their future data tables will distinguish between:
A: Raw Data as originally reported with no adjustments
B: Estimated Data based on surrounding stations since the data is missing
C: Adjusted Data (using a Blackbox Algorithm) because we don’t like the original data
If they do that, wouldn’t that be helpful to all?
Not even close to a satisfactory answer. Way too curt and seems filled with hope that a short stern answer will stop the inquiry.
“No – our algorithm is working as designed”
So, case settled.
There was some debate here about if this was a case of deliberate tampering or a bug.
One commenter said that “it was a feature until discovered, then it would become a “bug”.”
Not even that.
The deny it being a bug.
So, the other option is…
No – our algorithm is working as designed.
I know.
They are sweeping it under the rug..
GUILTY
“algorithm is working as designed”
Who signed off and designed the algorithm? I smell James Hansen’s dirty work!!!
When you are Gov and things do not go as you planed you make it show as you planned. Warmer then reality
So it’s a feature not a bug
They mean…they changed the design to comply with the code…..and please go away now.
The answer is in one sense honest: “Our algorithms are working as designed.”
We designed them to maintain zombie stations. We designed them to substitute estimated for actual data. We designed them to cool the past as a ‘reaction’ to UHI.
But in another sense, this is as bad or worse than IRS losing Lerner’s Emails, not following the law to recover from the backups, not reporting the fact to the National Archivist. It is another, “if you like your temperature, you can keep your temperature…”.
Politicization of rigged data. When finally called to account after the next election, they will first say we misunderstood what they meant, and then say they misspoke. And then maybe we will be able to jail a few, since the coverup is usually worse than the original crime.
What strange post modern times.
I guess this rules out incompetence.
Reads like STFU to me.
Congressional inquiries are in order.
You can ask your Congressman to inquire into this issue.
In US Government offices, everything stops when a Congressional inquiry is received.
Tell your Congressman that your communications with the temperature office were curtly rebuffed, without a satisfactory answer.
If everyone reading this talked to their Congressman’s office, at least a few would follow-up with the temperature scammers.
And you might actually get some answers.
Jesus just turned water into wine. These clowns are trying to turn BS into data. The threads are unraveling.
“No – our algorithm is working as designed”
The obvious has been stated. Do we know when the hearings and prosecutions will begin?
My usual answer to “working as designed” is to ask to see the design documents.
Decode: We’ll only panic if it looks like temps are dropping. Meanwhile, the money keeps rolling in.
“our algorithm is working as designed.”
Exactly.
“No – our algorithm is working as designed.”
Unfortunately not surprising. So it doesn’t matter if their data is as accurate as VA wait times, it is the answer they intended to produce.
The answers from NCDC are acceptable to Politifact? Forget that it smacks of a coordinated effort between the two and they are willing to accept this dissembling for a definitive answer.
“our algorithms are working as designed”
Most of us believe that IS the problem. Your algorithm produces garbage by infilling with spurious data.
Quinx says:
July 1, 2014 at 5:49 pm
“Decode: We’ll only panic if it looks like temps are dropping. Meanwhile, the money keeps rolling in.”
Temps are dropping, they just don’t have to admit that as long as their AlGorethm is working as designed.