Slashdot Mirror
Misuse of Scientific Data By the White House
Science data nerds writes "The White House is consistently and persistently claiming that the US is doing better than Europe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is false — their claim is purely based on carefully selecting the only subset of the data that supports this conclusion. When all the data are used, it is plain that European emissions have declined substantially and US emissions have grown substantially. The article, and this linked analysis, debunk the White House claims."
For everyone interested in this topic, Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science is required reading.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The submitter, the analysis, and the relevant claims in the first linked article are from the "Pacific Institute". That's fine and doesn't mean anything about it is incorrect, but probably means there is an agenda at work - surprise, just as there's an "agenda" served by the White House, too - and this is also a factual statement:
Pick any year since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in 1997, Mr. Bush should have said, and the U.S. CO2 emission performance is superior to that of all major Kyoto parties, including and most notably Europe (CO2 being the focus of the many pending legislative proposals).
Also, the submission complains that the US metric shown in a positive light - surprising they'd choose something that reflects positively! - is that because only CO2 emissions are considered. Well, CO2 emissions account for nearly three quarters of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time. There is no magical time in terms of statistical length or any point in time that is any more valid than any other. You can argue that the submitter is "cherry picking" his own data. It's laughable to say there is a "right" base year.
Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
but just see an opportunity to bash Bush.
How blatant do the lies have to be before it's justified? How can someone lie to you so much and so often yet you...apparently...seem to still support them?
Saying Bush cherry picks statistics and manipulates data to mislead the public (i.e. lying) cannot be doubted by a reasonable person. The truth doesn't have many friends these days, might ask yourself if you're one of them.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
China will probably become the biggest greenhouse gas emitter this year or next, International Energy Agency Chief Economist Fatih Birol said in April. Ma said today this is inevitable and he can't estimate when it will happen.
The country's[China's] greenhouse gas emissions reached 5.6 billion tons in 2004, of which 5.05 billion tons were carbon dioxide, the commission said in the report. U.S. emissions that year reached 7.12 billion tons, according to the Department of Energy.
I stole this Sig
Griffin did not dispute the reality of global warming, he's just not sure it is worth doing anything about it. This is strange coming from an engineer since one would think the basic reaction would be "Wow! If we can change the planet with out meaning to, what could we do if we engineered it?" but he seems to have some philosophical hangup about not interfering in how we are interfering with the planet. Here's a summary: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrat or_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global_Warming_A_Probl em_999.html.
s -selling-solar.html
More to the point on emissions from various countries, here is a recent Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tabulation of emission trends. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1. China appears to be primarily responsible for the acceleration of emissions. With the US reducing it's emissions 1.3% between 2005 and 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831796/, it look as though China will continue to dominate the acceleration.
While TFA has some valid points, the main thing is that industrialized countries have a better opportunity to slow or reduce emissions since, for them, efficiency improvements can pace growth while for developing nations efficiency cannot help with a growth from zero situation.
--
Out pace growth: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The UK model will meet US safety and emissions standards, but it won't be street legal as-is, due to minor things such as the differences in the kinds of lighting allowed on the vehicle. In the UK fog lights are mandatory, in the US they are illegal. In the UK, flashing brake lights are legal as turn signals, in the UK (on a new car) flashing brake lights are illegal. The steering wheel will be on the wrong side for the US, although that's probably not a street legality problem as the USPS drive right hand drive vehicles.
It is very likely that BMW makes their cars to pass the country who has the strictest emissions and safety standards, so they can build one body shell and one engine for the whole world as this decreases manufacturing costs.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Ah, you cited the "10,000 climatologists" of the Heidelberg appeal.
First, that's not what the Heidelberg appeal was about. It was signed by 4,000 self-described "scientists," not climatologists, and was essentially a position piece arguing against the idea of a "natural state," not a critique of climate change theory itself. It was written about 10 years ago, and many of its signatories have since gone on record as recognizing the reality of human causes to climate change.
You may be confusing it with the "Oregon petition." It is now recognized, generally, as a fraud. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is run from a small warehouse in the middle of rural Oregon. It is not a reputable scientific institute.
The truth of the matter is that these statements are motivated by forces who enjoy considerable prosperity based on practices which are threatened by responsible environmental policy. They know that they can't really win the debate on scientific grounds: instead, they want to create enough doubt and dissension that they can continue to enjoy maximal profits for as long as possible. Your "growing economy" is irresponsible and selfish.