Slashdot Mirror
NSF Accused of Misuse of Funds In Giant Ecological Project
An anonymous reader writes: The National Science Foundation (NSF) and a contractor have been accused by both an audit and by Congress of a significant misuse of funds in a major ecological monitoring project costing almost a half a billion dollars. From the article: "With a construction budget of $433.7 million, NEON is planned to consist of 106 sites across the United States. Arrays of sensors at each site will monitor climate change and human impacts for 30 years, building an unprecedented continental-scale data set. Although some initially doubted its merits, the allure of big-data ecology eventually won over most scientists.
But a 2011 audit of the project's proposed construction budget stalled three times when, according to the independent Defense Contract Audit Agency, NEON's accounting proved so poor that the review could not be completed. Eventually, DCAA issued an adverse ruling, concluding that nearly 36% of NEON's budget proposal was questionable or undocumented.
When the NSF green-lit the project, the agency's inspector-general ordered the audit released on 24 November, which found unallowable expenses including a $25,000 winter holiday party, $11,000 to provide coffee for employees, $3,000 for board-of-directors dinners that included alcohol, $3,000 for t-shirts and other clothes, $83,000 for "business development" and $112,000 for lobbying."
But a 2011 audit of the project's proposed construction budget stalled three times when, according to the independent Defense Contract Audit Agency, NEON's accounting proved so poor that the review could not be completed. Eventually, DCAA issued an adverse ruling, concluding that nearly 36% of NEON's budget proposal was questionable or undocumented.
When the NSF green-lit the project, the agency's inspector-general ordered the audit released on 24 November, which found unallowable expenses including a $25,000 winter holiday party, $11,000 to provide coffee for employees, $3,000 for board-of-directors dinners that included alcohol, $3,000 for t-shirts and other clothes, $83,000 for "business development" and $112,000 for lobbying."
I think what you were trying to say is "the allure of big-money ecology eventually won over most scientists" FTFY.
But yes I agree with you and more importantly so does the actual data.
No global average warming for 12 years.
We are well within the cyclical variances expected for the planet.
No model has yet matched the actual data or results with any degree of repeatability.
Global Warming is about a few things:
First there is a legitimate issue of natural resources wether oil is of biological or non-biological origins there is a limited production of the substance and we are utilizing it faster than it is being discovered/ created. I will grant the left this point. Fuel efficiency is a good thing, preserving the capability to create drugs and otehr oil based products is also a good thing until those materials are replaced.
Second it is about Power (political/ social). There is a mindset that America/ the West is using more than "its fair share" of resources and that we are evil. so Global warming is a way of yelling think about the children and save 'teh bebe animuls' etc all at one time.
Third it is about money. Scientists like doing science (novel idea I know) but they have to have money to do it. So if there is money to study the mating behaviour of licorice jelly beans by golly there will be scientists studying it. there is big money in affirming climate change because of reason #2 (see above) so there will be plenty of scientists wanting to study it. However they know that there results had better be what the politicians and social pressure people want or someone is going to notice the Emperor is really not wearing any clothes and then all the tailors get fired (beheaded/ thrown in the dungeon etc)