Government Scientists “Expected” The Huge Problems We Found

You can’t make this stuff up. NCDC “expected” problems as large as Paul and I found.

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?

NCDC responds to identified issues in the USHCN | Watts Up With That?

In other words, they knew that their graphs were bogus all along.

I wonder how long their public relations department spent working up that statement of misdirection?

ScreenHunter_235 Jun. 01 15.26

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Government Scientists “Expected” The Huge Problems We Found

  1. dccowboy says:

    Almost beyond belief … almost. Having worked at two Federal Agencies (FTC, NSF) this is EXACTLY the kind of response I would expect to see – Nothing to see here, move along.

  2. _Jim says:

    Left hand doesn’t acknowledge what the right hand in the building next door is doing …

  3. Gail Combs says:


    I bet you would not have gotten that BEFORE the Supreme Court Ruled the EPA could call CO2 a pollutant.

    Now they don’t care if the serfs find out they have been CONNED yet again.

  4. Eliza says:

    The government needs to change before anything will happen.

  5. geran says:

    “Government scientists” triggers the oxymoron alarm.

  6. Wyo Skeptic says:

    The Climate at a Glance portion of the NCDC website is giving nothing but wonky data right now. Select a site (annual data) and it will give the exact same numbers for min temp, avg temp, and max temp. Change from a site to statewide and what it does is give random numbers where the avg temp is exactly the same amount above min as max temp is above avg.

    Roy Spencer noted about the same numbers for min, avg, max on his blog about Las Vegas. I was curios and looked further. The site / feature is totally worthless right now.

  7. Dave N says:

    “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.”

    I can design an algorithm that works as I designed it; that doesn’t mean it produces correct results. Yet another statement of misdirection.

  8. I think what they are saying is that they expect huge problems because it’s government work. 😛

    (Fortunately once they finish their work on Obama’s healthcare website, they can resume their activities on national temperature measurement.)

  9. Send Al to the Pole says:

    They have no intention of truly correcting it either. The time they want is to figure out how to hide the same increase somewhere else and declare that the fix didn’t make any difference.

  10. “Across America, climate change already is super-charging summer, and with hotter days we’re seeing more risks to our health and happiness,” said Peter Altman, director of NRDC’s Climate Campaign. “We can ease these warm-day woes today, but it would be wrong to doom tomorrow’s families and children to even more heat waves, code red air alerts, disease-carrying ticks, poison ivy rashes, stomach illnesses and degraded national landmarks. That’s not a future they deserve. And that’s why we need to rein in the biggest source of climate pollution, the unrestricted carbon pollution from power plants.”

    NRDC has to be one of the most corrupt organizations out there. IMHO

  11. david dohbro says:

    From NOAA’s “climate at a glance website” I just checked San Francisco, CA and got the same results: the average, max and min temperatures for the month of May are all the same (and for any other month):

    then went on to check Fresno, CA. same deal here, now for the month of February….

    very, very, very disturbing.

    Question now is “what is it the algorithm designed to do?” Is it supposed to be accurate, be wrong, be false, be corrupt, be miss-informing, etc?

    • _Jim says:

      Question now is “what is it the algorithm designed to do?” Is it supposed to be accurate, be wrong, be false, be corrupt, be miss-informing, etc?

      It’s the climatological equivalent of a Ouija board, capable of damn near any answer one wants depending on whose ‘hand is on the tiller’ …


  12. Phil Jones says:

    Use actual temperature measurements… How common sensical… 81,000,000 data points…

    Yep,that’s the point … Exclude your confirmation bias and unadjust…

  13. ozspeaksup says:

    waiting for the excuse: some nasty people hacked our programs?
    we will have to destroy our hard drives now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *