Government Work : No Verification Permitted

I worked for many years designing microprocessors. I very likely designed parts of the microprocessor in your computer, Playstation and X-Box. In the microprocessor design business, companies hire large teams of verification engineers, whose job it is to find faults with the design. These companies can’t afford to have any bugs when their product gets to market.

Government agencies like NCDC have the opposite problem – they are pushing a global warming agenda and can’t afford to release any correct information. So they make press releases without doing any comparison vs. real data. NCDC just announced that April was the warmest on record globally. Had they done any comparison vs. much more accurate satellite data, they would have known that they were wrong.

NCDC global temperatures are diverging from satellite data at a rate as large as their claimed warming trend.

ScreenHunter_132 May. 25 14.09


In other words, NCDC’s data and press release is complete nonsense, with no factual basis behind it. So they are doing the job the White House has tasked them with.

About stevengoddard

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

12 Responses to Government Work : No Verification Permitted

  1. gator69 says:

    Makes you wonder why we bother spending money on fancy satellites. Maybe that will be the next NASA “improvement”! I mean why even support a network of weather stations, when you can just make crap up, save money, and raise taxes without pesky “data” interfering with your agenda?


  2. B says:

    Scientists are far too arrogant to do the sorts of rigorous reviews, testing, and verification done in engineering fields. The motivations are entirely different too. A scientist is best served career and job wise by going along to get along and not having errors uncovered. An engineer is best served by not having products on the market fail.

    Also, people wanted government to sponsor science because they were raised to believe that government has no biases and only wants what’s best for us. Sadly they were very mistaken and government has taken full advantage.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Please make that scientists in government and academia.

      Those of us who were scientists working in industry also have to deal with reality taking a large chunk our of our nethers if we try to ignore it. Companies that insist that scientist ‘Ignore reality’ go belly up.

      This by the way is why large corporations LOVE socialism. E.M.Smith has a great explanation of why.

      …Realize that the capitalist urge is not toward a competitive market. It’s the very LAST thing any profit maximizer wants. …

      What a profit maximizer wants is a monopoly where they can achieve the profit maximizing price point. Not competition. No “market” with many sellers.

      So watch what GE does, as an example. It is always on the hunt for a market it can “dominate”. It uses political leverage to get its products mandated and the competition banned. It doesn’t want a market, it wants a ‘company store’.

      Internalize that, and a lot of things “fit” better…

      Monsanto pushing legislation to ban private traditional seeds and seed sharing, and promoting GMO products. (Why would a seed company want to ‘destroy’ a seed market? So you must come to the company store…)

      EPA is used to forbid all sorts of things that can be done easily and cheaply, and where the alternative is very expensive (and available from very few, or one, supplier). So, want to make your own “trash to fuel FT machine”? Well, better check out all the “regulations” on fuel refining and production … if you don’t have a few full time lawyers to fill out the paperwork and a few more to defend against the EPA suing you, it’s a no-go. And who DOES have those lawyers? AND the already established refineries? Oh yeah…

      Once corporations figure out that it is cheaper and easier to get the competition banned and them mandated, than to create new products; and that they can make lots of money as the sole provider of a crappy product but not that much making good products in a competitive market; well, lets just say that the campagne contributions flow…

      Those same contributions also make sure that the heads of the created bureaucracies target the small and medium corporations and leave the big guys alone.

      One commenter at another blog had a brother who worked for EPA. He was directed to go after the Mom and Pop companies and to leave the big guys alone. SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy is another example.

      E.M. goes on to say:

      ..Oddly, you can look at Communism as the “limit case” where there is ONE corporation and it IS the government. At the other extreme is “laissez faire” with huge numbers of competitors. As you move toward Communism you pass through stages of ever more “concentration” of control. Just shy of communism is Classical Socialism with it’s state planning boards and commissions. A bit more toward L.F. you get “Market Socialism” (with some sub-types in between).

      The USA until about 1990 was a “Mixed Economy” with some “natural monopolies” under government “control” via “regulation”; and with many competitive markets. We’ve moved to more central planning and more central “regulation” (in some cases as a cover for the “planning” word that has gotten tied to Socialism… so is political to some extent). With the nationalization of GM and the bank “bailout” / “rescue” that was really more of a ‘take-under’ in some ways; we moved to a Lange Type Socialism.

      The result of the last 50 years has been more companies in markets with Oligopolies that are essentially guaranteed by the government. Who dominates the Home Mortgage Market? Fanny & Freddy – Gov’t Corporations. Who dominates the Student Loan Market? Sally Mae – a Gov’t Corporation. Who dominates US Autos? GM – a Gov’t Corporation via Nationalization, but now being sold off. (Though Ford is doing well too.) And who “Calls the Tune” for the Banks in America? ALL of them? The Federal Reserve Bank – a Gov’t sponsored corporation. And there are a whole lot more of them. Try taking a train from coast to coast for example…

      At the next tier down, we have Gov’t dependent Oligopolies. Say you wanted to make airplanes. First off, you need that dozen lawyers to work the FAA for you. Next up, you need some friends in the Military to feed you contracts. Don’t think so? When Boeing gets a $B contract to ‘study’ or ‘develop’ and you need to design your new tech from scratch on your own money: Who do you think will win? So the government basically decides how many companies it wants, and who they will be, then funds them “to plan” with contracts. (This is NOT a hypothetical… I’ve watched them flat out announce “We’d like Lockheed and Martin to merge” or “we don’t want…” usually when one of them is ‘having issues’ and the topic is raised. Then the gov’t casts the one vote that matters…)

      And so it goes…

      This is, dare I say it…. basically the same way the Fascist “Third Way” worked. (And it DOES work). FDR and Wilson both had high praise for The Third Way and you can see how they shifted America from a ‘free market’ toward “Third Way” government – corporation “cooperation” … It was this same process / tendency that Ike warned about in the “Military Industrial Complex” speech…..

      There is more to his comment which I consider solid gold because it explains what we are seeing here in the USA and elsewhere. It is why we, the little voters, are completely left out of the loop except as resources to be exploited. The politicians corporate CEOs and Academia decide not us.

      • B says:

        Most “private sector” scientists work in fields that have been turned into cartels by government regulation. For instance, creating Monsanto’s GMO crops. Creating drugs for the big drug companies, etc and so forth. I have found them to be every bit as arrogant, ignorant of how to make a safe, effective, and affordable product for market, and political as any scientist employed directly by government and academia.

        The current system of CEO’s and politicians deciding is the model that they have been working towards since the 19th century. At that point it’s fascism which is functionally little different than communism except which party is senior to which. I disagree that capitalism brings this about. It’s always the state that brings about this condition. The difference is the path to it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I should add this info from another source. Nicole Johnson has five pages of references to back up what she is saying in this article.

      With World War II, America saw its agricultural system intentionally subjected to political policies that radically transformed it. What was once a decentralized system that provided a means to self sufficiency and independence for tens of millions of farmers was purposefully centralized into a capital-intensive fossil-fuel dependent system that restructured local economies, permitting their wealth to be extracted by what are now transnational cartels dedicated to the so-called free market and globalized trade at all costs.

      This transformation was the result of organized plans developed by a group of highly powerful — though unelected — financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to better serve their collective corporate financial agenda. This group, called the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation’s foreign policies.[1]

      Composed of chief executive officers and chairmen from the federal reserve, the banking industry, private equity firms, insurance companies, railroads, information technology firms, publishing companies, pharmaceutical companies, the oil and automotive industries, meat packing companies, retailers and assisted by university economists — representatives from every sector of the economy with the key exception of farmers themselves — CED determined that the problem with American agriculture was that there were too many farmers. But the CED had a “solution”: millions of farmers would just have to be eliminated.….

      In a number of reports written over a few decades, CED recommended that farming “resources” — that is, farmers — be reduced. In its 1945 report “Agriculture in an Expanding Economy,” CED complained that “the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably the most important single factor in the ‘farm problem'” and describes how agricultural production can be better organized to fit to business needs.[2] A report published in 1962 entitled “An Adaptive Program for Agriculture”[3] is even more blunt in its objectives, leading Time Magazine to remark that CED had a plan for fixing the identified problem: “The essential fact to be faced, argues CED, is that with present high levels farm productivity, more labor is involved in agriculture production that the market demands — in short, there are too may farmers. To solve that problem, CED offers a program with three main prongs.”[4]

      Some of the report’s authors would go on to work in government to implement CED’s policy recommendations. Over the next five years, the political and economic establishment ensured the reduction of “excess human resources engaged in agriculture” by two million, or by 1/3 of their previous number.

      CED members were influential in business, government, and agricultural colleges, and their outlook shaped both governmental policies and what farmers were taught. Farmers found themselves encouraged to give up on a farming system that employed minimal outsourced inputs and capital and get “efficient” by adopting instead a system that required they go into debt in order to purchase ever more costly inputs, like fossil-fuel based fertilizers, chemicals, seeds, feed grain, and machinery…..

      We are now seeing the tail end of the plan as the last of the independent farmers are being driven out of business by the new “Food Safety Modernization Act” and the big money moves into the soon to be regulated to death market niche.

      Expect to see food quality to plummet, (It already is.) while prices go through the roof.

      So much for a government for the people and by the people.

  3. omanuel says:

    Regretfully, government research agencies became government propaganda mills in 1945.

    Research grants were given to those who would claim evidence in support of post-1945 Standard Models of

    1. The nucleus
    2. Earth’s climate
    3. The Sun
    4. The Galaxy
    5. The universe


    • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

      Ban this constant spammer Steve and stop posting NAZI photos, to re-civilize your blog and be taken more seriously. I come here to post new information only to be accosted by sex offenders crackpots and Holocaust photos that you put up in response to mass murder in the news. It’s just gross and inappropriate to harbor this filth on a science blog.

      A new paper seems to skewer NASA GISS:

      “This all suggests that long-term “urban cooling” is unlikely to have been a frequent spontaneous feature of urban development for the stations being used by NASA GISS. In other words, if NASA GISS’ urbanization adjustments are genuinely removing urbanization bias, then only a small fraction (at most) of their adjustments should be for “urban cooling”. The fact that roughly half of their adjustments are for urban cooling, suggests their adjustment approach is unreliable.”

      Click to access oprj-article-climate-science-31.pdf

  4. Andy DC says:

    At the very least, the average person should know that the alarmist claims are not based on actual data. That is all you really need to know.

  5. TimC says:

    The US Army Corp of Engineers and LSU are collaborating to build a large physical model of the lower Mississippi river,

    The new physical model is needed, because computer models are unable to capture fine details of the river’s complex hydrology. When results from computer models of the Mississippi are compared to either physical models or the actual river itself, they just don’t do very well.

    Wouldn’t it be something if the Army C of E could build a physical model of the Earth’s climate to test the accuracy of computer models? Since computer models can’t even handle the complexity of the lower Mississippi, I strongly suspect that they would not be verified by a physical model. Of course, there is no physical model of the Earth’s climate, so the computer models are just assumed to be infallible, even though they have proven highly inaccurate in the past.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s