Close Enough for Government Work

"Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." (Barack Obama Tweet)

When I was growing up, some of the adults in my life had a habit of saying, "Close enough for government work!" They were not involved in government work when they said it. We might be building something, and taking a measurement that did not require tight tolerances. A board was cut, handed to the person nailing it in place, who might put it in place and notice that it was, say, one-eighth of an inch off the precise measurement, but adequate for the intended purpose. 

"Is it OK?" the cutter asks. 

"Close enough...for government work," would be the grinning reply.

It was acceptable, because the job was one that allowed for a margin of error.

But where did the saying come from? The message is this: while private business must meet the toughest standards of all--provide a better product to a customer than any competitor provides at the same cost--government is held to no such competitive standard. Government has no direct competitor. As a result, government work is often shoddy, imprecise, might even fail miserably...yet gets a pass. The taxpayers still have to pay.

Recently we've seen "close enough for government work" taken to a new level. If I claimed my product was 97% proven when it was actually32.6% proven, would that sell in private industry? If I claimed 97% liked my service when actually 32.6% did, would I expose myself to ridicule? As a matter of fact, if I sold you something representing it to be 97% effective when I knew that studies showed 32.6% effectiveness, you could sue me for false advertising. Deceptive trade practice. Breach of contract. Depending on the industry, I might even go to jail for it.

But our President is held to no such standards, either by competitors (there are none to government), law or customers (average voters). In order to promote his continued expansion of government regulation of industry he grossly misrepresents Anthropological Global Warming (AGW). 

On one hand, he often avoids saying what he really means or stating his real agenda. Take the recent decrees hurting the coal industry. His own climate advisor may have let the cat out of the bag a bit:

"The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed."  Daniel P. Schrag

But when trying to marginalize critics or use "science" to advance his regulatory agenda, he gets pretty bold. Listen to him:

"I don't have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."

Take that from the prince of tolerance! Or how about...

"Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change. ... But we also know that in a world that's warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet."  

"In fact, those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don't have time to deny it -- they're busy dealing with it. ... I had to sit on a meeting with the Department of Interior and Agriculture and some of the rest of my team just to figure out how we're going to pay for more and more expensive fire seasons."

More and expensive fire seasons. Double message: we need more money to fight fires, and we are actively saving you from ignorance. But wait, how does it measure up to reality? This year's fire season is the quietest on record. 

But the whopper of all is this one:

"So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science ... has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest."

Meteorologist Anthony Watts (who operates the most viewed website on climate change and global warming in the world at wattsupwiththat.com) investigated the President's source and claim. The actual study being cited reported only 32.6% of scientific papers endorsed AWG.  Saying that 32.6% is 97% is a lie of audacious proportions!  It is amazingly pitiful that misstating by 3x the actual number in the study (from a less than one-third minority to virtual unanimity) is the best the President could do to support his agenda!

Close enough for government work? I think our standards, even for government, are slipping!