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."
Why, I'll see your see misuse of scientific data by the right wing with a misuse of scientific data by the left!
a) Including 1990 as a base year for European emissions is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, up until very recently European economic growth has badly lagged that of the USA. When there is less growth, there is less emissions. Even now, European economic growth lags, as a rule. When you have 10% of your people unemployed, as the French do, it does not take them much CO2 to drive to work, as there is no work to drive to. Secondly, Europeans have been furiously gaming emissions in their own right. There's been rampant adjusting of the baseline in order to improve their own greenhouse picture. So, the real question is, are the Europeans actually seriously making their targets, or are they simply patting themselves on the back for the slow growth side effects of the nanny state.
b) The gases described by the convention do not include water vapor, which constitutes the bulk of global warming.
c) All climate conventions these days presuppose that a reduction in manmade emissions will correct the atmospheric balance of gasses, and, that, by doing so, our climate will revert to some imagined ideal state of 1700, which was in the middle of an ice age, and a billion people will easily starve to death because of a shortened growing season. This will be almost as stupid as the wide spread left wing opposition to nuclear power, which essentially doomed us to global warming to begin with. Really, if the USA had gone 100% nuclear, there would be no global warming, and, so really, all of this finger pointing at Republicans over global warming is an elaborate smokescreen to say that you Lefties once again f=== up the planet and want we superior Bush supporters to bail you out.
We told you what the answer was : Build Nukes. Build Hydro. If you don't like it, that's your problem.
I think anyone can see that humanity needs to manage the atmospheric mixture of gases. We manage the acidity of our soils to grow things, we build dams around rivers and levees around the sea. It only stands to reason that we should do battle with mother nature and preserve some happy mix of gases to benefit humanity. So, where is the call to actually build a technology that sequesters excess gases from the atmosphere? Why can't we research and build machines that eat CO2 and turn it into carbon and oxygen? Sure, the energy required to split that up is enormous, but, that's what nukes are for. Do we really seriously build an atmospheric management strategy that a geologically active planet with a radioactive core and a radically diverse ecosystem will not on occasion enter an atmospheric state on its own that we should control? What if we discover some giant CO2 source on the ocean floor that we never considered before?
Let's pursue a strategy of building nuclear plants to reduce our own emissions, and then, while we are at it, build a machine to manage the atmosphere.
This is my sig.
The critical point about greenhouse emissions control is it is an extremely intricate economic, political and environmental maneuver. You try to control CO2 and you do it wrong there is a high probability of unintended consequences and a net worsening of the situation. There isn't exactly a right and wrong way to do it, its more likely to be a case of some people will win and some will lose under a CO2 control regime which is why its so controversial.
Businesses and nations which ignore emission controls are almost assured to benefit economically. If they use cheap power, have no carbon taxes to pay and no expensive pollution controls they will kill their competitors who are facing such controls, they already are(a.k.a China). The trading regime instituted in Europe has already caused stress to clean efficient plants trying to control their emissions because they face competitors in places like Morocco with no control regime who undersell them. If this happens on a large scale Europe looks great on the CO2 front but only because all the big emitters have gone off shore to Asia and Africa. The end result could be a net worsening of the climate problem because there will be a bunch of dirty plants spewing CO2 in all the "developing" world replacing cleaner but too expensive ones in developed countries.
The key point to CO2 control is it has to be applied globally and evenly or it isn't going to work. If it isn't applied globally countries who aren't participating have to have exports heavily taxed so they are forced to pay for abusing CO2 emissions. The Kyoto protocol is indeed deeply flawed because it exerts little control over India and China because they are "developing" countries but their CO2 emissions are exploding. If you crack down on the U.S., Japan and Europe but leave India and China unchecked you will just give them yet another competitive advantage. They will build even more really dirty power plants and factories and the global CO2 situation will get worse not better.
A cynic could say CO2 controls on developed countries is just another ploy to further devastate the economies of developed countries to the benefit China, India and other cheap off shoring destinations.
In China's defense they are realizing their massive abuse of coal is an ecological disaster in the making, or already made, and they are undertaking a massive switch to nuclear energy. This is a key reason processed Uranium has gone from $10/lb to $130/lb since 2003 and Toshiba bought Westinghouse's Nuclear division, to build China nukes. They are building something like 32 nuclear power plants by 2020 and 10 times that by 2050. They've also broken ground on a huge nuclear waste dump. Going nuclear is obviously a double edged sword but it is one of the not so many viable options to what China is doing now, throwing up rat trap coal fired power plants at a furious pace, with no pollution controls, terrible efficiency and which are spewing vast quantities of CO2 and Mercury in to the air.
@de_machina
Better put (as my stats professor said):
Torture statistics enough, and it will admit to anything.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
From American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, definition 3: incompetence - "The inability to distinguish right from wrong or to manage one's affairs."
Hmm..that sounds familiar. From Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), sociopath - "a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."; from American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, sociopath - "Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others."
Now, as for malice; from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), malice - "desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness".
So, in short, I rather agree with your definition. Bush much better fits the definition of sociopath, not one with malice. Of course, that's rather disturbing.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
You imagine that the scientists fuck around and lie about their side, and your imagination gives you license to actually fuck around and lie on your side.
Open your eyes and you'll find out that it's not both sides that are making shit up. It's one side telling the truth, and one side lying.
Now guess which side Rush Limbaugh is on.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Did you read the PDF? Did you look at the graph at the bottom?
The US shows a steady increase of greenhouse gas emissions, EXCEPT for the period between 2000 and 2002 where it shows a pretty sharp decline. This decline is NOT because of a conscious effort to reduce emissions, it's a direct result of 9/11 and its effects on the airline industry. There's no will behind the decline, it's just a freak accident, a secondary effect. And to include that decline in any sort of comparison and say "Look guys, we're doing better!" is completely dishonest.