From the “we’ve told you so time and again” department comes this agreement with my assessment of the state of the climate programs as conducted by the US Government. Readers may recall this report from the GAO that was spurred by the work of the Surfacestations project: GAO report on the poor quality of the US climate monitoring network
Now there’s another report, for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that not only looks into the problems with reporting climate data from such programs, but also accountability (or lack of it) with climate program money.
Here’s the damning quote:
Lack of oversight, non-compliance and a lax review process for the State Department’s global climate change programs have led the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to conclude that program data “cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers” and it cannot be ensured “that Federal funds were being spent in an appropriate manner.”
For example, OIG found that:
“[T]he Department was unable to address the funds transfer promptly or account for $600,000 in Department funds,” referring to “Economic Support Funds transferred to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).”
Based on oversight issues it identified in a 2012 audit, last week OIG released its “Compliance Followup Audit of Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) Administration and Oversight of Funds Dedicated to Address Global Climate Change.”
OIG’s original report found that “OES did not fully implement the guidance for conducting [Data Quality Assessments] to help ensure that the data used in reporting programmatic results were complete, accurate, consistent, and supportable.”
Source of story
===========================================================
Source of OIG report: http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/220858.pdf
I must say, Mosher and Stokes once again contribute in a positive manner. I appreciate that and the input provided by everyone that is relevant and clarifying. Many get too wound up and don’t see clearly sometimes.
Data is data in the end. Good or bad, it is all we have.
I do like the fact that exposure to specific funding is now in some cross hairs. It has been a long time coming. Nobody would run their house the way some climate houses have been allowed.
Think of how much money that has been spent in ways that were unbelievable over the years. The examples are endless.
The real question will be,,,,, how many recipients of funds can stand up to even the slightest scruitiny. Its coming and soon.
Kevin.
The goal of best was to take all of the publically available open data and construct a open checkable record using methods that are proven supported outside of climate science and suggested by skeptics. It is a given that the records themselves have issues.
So first one aims at making the best record subject to the realities given.
Is it fit for purpose?.
Yes. It depends on the purpose.
Ill put it this way. Take away the records and one still knows that co2 warms the planet and fossil fuels need to b phased out
Mosher,
Fossil fuels need to be acknowledged as one of the most important contributors to the well being of the inhabitants of this planet. Until your last statement, I had a modicum of respect for you.
If fossil fuels are phased out, we will need an expensive artificial way to increase co2 to feed the population of this planet.
The watermelons cannot but help expose their agenda. Thank you Steve Mosher for reminding us of this fundamental truth.
Haven’t you heard, the science is settled — the data doesn’t matter.
Steven Mosher says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:21 pm
“Ill put it this way. Take away the records and one still knows that co2 warms the planet and fossil fuels need to b phased out.”
Let the record show that Mr. Mosher (and presumably Jai) have voted to take their chances vis-a-vis the half-precession old Holocene and the AGW trace gas CO2.
I’m not actually opposed to what you both would prefer. I have no offspring in the offing…… It isn’t so much that I think CO2 could prevent the next glacial inception, it’s the entertainment value in watching the most progressive of us either do the wrong thing (if you are right) or, at best, an intellectually impotent thing (if you are wrong).
Go ahead! It’s alright by me if you want to strip the most vaunted GHG from the late Holocene atmosphere. If you are right, you just plunked-down on MIS-1 repeating the extended interglacial MIS-11, for however long you fancy. Please do note, however, that MIS-11 was not all that stable a climate ride………:
http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf
http://www.clim-past.net/6/31/2010/cp-6-31-2010.pdf
Even during the only post-MPT interglacial to make it past about half a precession cycle it got awfully cold between MIS-11’s two insolation peaks.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could smooth that over with something…………
Steven Mosher says: February 7, 2014 at 5:21 pm
I’ll put it this way. Take away the records and one still knows that co2 warms the planet and fossil fuels need to b phased out
Data not required? Innate knowledge?
“. . . fossil fuels need to b (sic) phased out [Steven Mosher, 2/7/2014]
However much one believes and wants the above, it is not going to happen. There will be a time in the non-near future when the use of mined-carbon-based fuel decreases. But not soon. A substantial portion of the autos and trucks being built at the current time use gasoline or diesel and many will still be in use 20, even 30, years from now. The building of such vehicles continues, pushing the beginning of the decline further out. Some sort of nuclear technology may replace much of the coal and gas utility scale electricity. Building these sorts of things is costly and slow. Starting from concept to grid connection a new project in a new location might take 15 years. How many can go forward at one time? 90% replacement of existing gas and coal plants is nowhere in sight.
Consider the contrast with about 125 years ago when large urban places realized the need to replace horses and horse-power from central cities. The alternative was already available, acceptable, and easily adapted to the situation. The transition was relatively swift. Those who were middle aged at the time saw a >90% transformation before they checked out. The history of that period is documented on the web. Young folks, especially those that have never experienced horses, should spend a few hours reviewing this period. For example, with the current temperature not rising above freezing for the day, each of my horses eat 25 to 30 pounds of hay each day. Horses are very inefficient and produce a large volume of waste. In a city, hay being brought in would pass waste going out. Such coming and goings did not add to productivity and few were nostalgic for it when it passed. But, I digress.
Mr. Mosher is past middle age (I think) and will not live to see Earth as he wishes.
February 7, 2014 at 3:50 pm | Walter Allensworth says:
————
That may be so Walter but the Mob wasn’t taken down for murder, extortion, racketeering, etc., it was done for not paying taxes ! Likewise here, the AGW fraudsters won’t be taken down for their rubbish science, they’ll be taken down for non-compliance with legislation.
Streetcred says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:58 pm
“……they’ll be taken down for non-compliance with legislation.”
On the other hand one can always look forward to visiting the AGW booth at the upcoming Ice Fair on the frozen Thames………:-)
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. ”
Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
The same speech that conspiracy theorists link to the military industrial complex is in control.
rogerknights says: “Could someone help me out with an online dispute I’m having?”
I can’t, but I know someone who can. Mother Nature. She continues to pour cold water all over Global Warmist claims.
Despite highest ppm levels of CO2, in last several hundred years, there has been no warming for last 15-years. No Global Warming, means AGW (man-made CO2 induced warming) is at best hyped faulty science, at worst a scam for power and money that used F.U.D. against global populace.
Problem with discussing Global Warming – is the Proponents of AGW, keep morphing their scam and claims, while denying data, facts, and physics that runs counter to their scam and claims.
Steven Mosher – “Take away the records and one still knows that co2 warms the planet and fossil fuels need to b phased out.”
Make all the statements you want, but without Scientific proof and Mother Nature’s agreement; all you have is unsubstantiated claims.
rogerknights says:
“Could someone help me out with an online dispute I’m having?”
This was explained a few days ago but I did not make a note of it. It is in a comment. I think rgbatduke explained and then someone else replied, saying “I was about to make this point, but you did it first.” If you contact ‘rgb’ or see a comment by him and jump in and ask, you might get to it. Sorry I don’t have that comment at hand.
rogerknights says:
February 7, 2014 at 4:33 pm
“….At the tropopause, the CO2 levels, in absolute terms, in molecules per unit volume, have fallen below the saturation level, and infrared radiation begins to transit the atmosphere above the tropopause, causing the Earth to lose heat, balancing the heat it’s receiving from the Sun.”
“How should I counter that last paragraph? (Is it one of SkS’s sophistries?)”
Well, something like that must happen as we reach thermal equilibrium. But what is it that should be recommended when:
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
http://folk.uib.no/abo007/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/sirocko_seelos05.nat.pdf
Drop below, for whatever reason, and await however many D-O oscillations between this interglacial and the next? Or would it even be conceivable, no matter how far-fetched, that we could bridge the insolation gap “for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again?”
Even a caveman would get this……
How long until the IG is not the IG?
Ill put it this way. Take away the records and one still knows that co2 warms the planet and fossil fuels need to b phased out
==================================
Nurse, he’s got to the computer again!!
Is this the beginning of the end of the great climate funding trough? Or is it the end of the beginning?
Since warming is net beneficial, and cooling is net detrimental and likely catastrophic, phasing out the only warming agent we have is foolish.
=================================
2013 Among the Warmest on Record: WMO Reports
read more: http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/2013-among-the-warmest-on-record-wmo-reports/
rogerknight says
The issue is around radiative effects at TOA and the relation to possible global warming. And yes, the alarmists again have it backwards (reversed cause and effect).
Radiative gases near the surface have the highest KE (temperature) and emit the most energy upwards. But the density of the air mass in the lower atmosphere means that radiated energy doesn’t make it to space, but is taken up by conduction with other gases, mainly N2 and O2. At the top of the atmosphere, there is no impediment to radiation upwards, but most of the KE has been converted to PE, and thus the radiation is weak. The maximum radiation to space occurs at an altitude where there is an optimum combination of the two factors: Higher KE and lower density. This would be better termed the Maximum ORL than ERL.
When there is a warming of the surface and atmosphere, e.g at noon on the equator, the atmosphere expands and all gases are more energized, the result being that the optimum radiation altitude moves higher than before. But this change is the result of increased temperature and not the cause.
Could this be a reason that the gov is setting up “climate hubs” around the U.S…..
Thanks, A. Good reporting.
“cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers”; what an understatement!
Your ideological slip is showing again. Can you not make it through one thread without exposing your nakedness? I have no objection to nudity… just yours. GK