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
Anyone get the feeling the argument isn’t really about climate? Instead the underlying factors are money and control
Shocked, just completely shocked. The government would spend money wastefully and would not fully account for it. Shocked!
Be it Healthcare, Immigration, or “Climate change” Government has proven to be ill stewards of money, responsibility and power.
Steven Mosher says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:21 pm
“Take away the records and one still knows that co2 warms the planet and fossil fuels need to b phased out.”
Take away all the science of the past two centuries, and one still knows that God orders all, both great and small, within the circles of the world. Repent now, for the end is nigh!
I do not actually claim that, but it is a similar statement. This is religion.
I would not overplay this report. If you read the audit, most of the findings are related to compliance with govt standards in managing grants. Having worked for a NGO that received grant money from the govt, an audit result like this is pretty typical. The complexity of managing these grants is somewhat ridiculous, and the paperwork burden is heavy.
I’m pretty certain the audit did not look at all about at the scientific data, only the management practices of the grant, and therefore the term “program data” does not necessarily mean the underlying data of measuring temperature or other is incorrect. It may be saying that data about the financial aspects of the projects or grant management or sub grant management is not accurate. That would be true if you can’t account for $600K and haven’t done site visits with subgrantees.
Rufus says:
February 8, 2014 at 9:41 am
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Taken in isolation, the revelation might be discounted. But, when you find a clear and pervasive pattern of deception and obfuscation, you cannot simply disregard it in weighing the merits of the case against the accused.
Give Steven Mosher the benefit of the doubt.
“The watermelons cannot but help expose their agenda.”
Comments like this and others similar are rude and offensive and add nothing to the discussion. Others manage to disagree without resorting to ad hominem and childish comments like this. If you can’t offer and intelligent contribution, or reasoned rebuttal then perhaps you should say nothing.
It is grossly disrespectful to simply attack others, especially those who work in the field simply because you disagree.
Full quote: “Without fully implementing DQAs that consider appropriate sources of data, reviewing methodologies used by sources to collect and validate data, and verifying what recipients have provided with evidence of processes and raw data sources, the data used by OES to report programmatic results for climate change programs cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers.”
Sez who? Sez you? The warming is trivial, warming is beneficial up to some much higher than any plausible projection or prediction, Fossil fuels contribute hugely and uniquely to human well-being, and to plant robustness and growth by contributing CO2, irreplaceable nutrient. Substitutes, for the foreseeable future, are ruinously costly and environmentally damaging.
The push to restrict its production is perverse and pointless.