It was also good to see an older guy with those fit muscles.

Dishman #53: #50 Scott, I’m currently trying to investigate one aspect of that via FOIA. If you information, thoughts or angles of investigation, we may want to talk. Steve M has my e-mail.

The absence of an appropriate and effective records management program in government-supported climate research is fertile ground for a GAO audit and follow-on report.

I am surprised that no such GAO investigation has been pursued in the past. Either it hasn’t been asked for, which is very possible, or else the audit actually was requested but was quashed.

I think it more likely that no one has thought to send the GAO on a type of mission which would be a fairly routine assignment for their staff. NASA would be the very first place I would send the GAO auditors if I were requesting this audit myself.

Nice point! One reads the White Paper and the PR Challenge, and you have to ask where is the improvent in data quality and analysis since MBH98? Where are the programs to put Anthony Watts out of work at his blog? To provide easy archiving and retieval, by interested parties? Etc.

Perhaps we could all get together in Wengen in February and discuss it around some pleasant skiing. But no requirements permitted, just “goals and concerns”. How do we get NOAA to pay for it?

I really do hope we are to cynical. And we are seeing change, however glacial.

I’m currently trying to investigate one aspect of that via FOIA. If you information, thoughts or angles of investigation, we may want to talk. Steve M has my e-mail.

What I find somewhat unique about some areas of climate science is that one can see these types of valid and commonsense criticisms, as contained in this white paper, without the consequential placing of any added uncertainty on the conclusions coming from the involved science –and in particular when it comes to a show of scientists’ hands on votes that have policy implications. I suspect that this effort will be no different.

Smokey #45: Dennis Wingo, re: archiving…..Maybe there used to be a problem with archiving, but that was then and this is now. ….. Today archiving costs literally nothing. Even emailing the info to all colleagues and a journal would suffice….. The only reason that taxpayer-funded work isn’t archived is because someone doesn’t like sunshine.

Wrong ….

Records management programs which meet currently accepted standards for information archiving and maintenance are expensive to operate in terms of time, money, and people. Running these programs effectively also requires that those who generate the information at its source have a basic understanding of records management theory and practice, and that they build time and money into their work schedules to handle the prep work needed for long term data and information archiving.

OK, that being said …. Let’s take for an example an organization which calls itself the “National Aeronautics and Space Administration.” Certainly NASA has the policies and procedures in place which demand that professional records management practices be followed, and that adequate resources be provided to its employees to do so.

If for example, NASA’s management is not requiring of its employees that appropriate records management practices be followed, and if NASA management is not providing appropriate resources to allow its employees to follow its own written rules, then it would seem that NASA’s management needs to replaced by people who accept their official responsibilities and who are willing to follow accepted professional standards as these are embodied in written policies and procedures.