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."
Just more wishy-washy leberal blathering. The head of NASA says that Global Warming doesn't exist - and if it does, it's Gods will. Maybe it's time to get Baptized, eh?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
...so what else is new? http://30days.itious.com/
21st-Century-Citizen
Scandal? WTF are you talking about? It's a scandal when they lead us into a quagmire of a war and kill more US citizens than 9/11 did. This is just science, no one will give a shit about it enough to cause a scandal in the first place...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Toyota is not at all successful because it's "going green". It's successful for a wide variety of other reasons, and had been in various markets against US automakers before the whole hybrid craze (which is not a panacea itself) caught on. And need we be reminded that correlation does not equal causation?
And if you want to ignore what is one of the most advanced hybrid systems being rolled out to date, fine.
Green is not always "efficient", does not always pay off as quickly as it needs to, and your reasoning that "Green is efficient, so Green is smart business," and the only reason that we're not "going green" is to protect "one particular set of players in an industry," is so wrongheaded and simplistic that it's laughable. Sure, go ahead and believe that big, bad GM and Ford are just after only short term profits and destroying the environment.
This DOES NOT mean we should not strive for efficiency and so on. But efficiency doesn't automatically equal "green", and vice versa. If your simplistic assertion were true, GM and everyone else would be all over it. But sadly, it's not that simple.
George? Is that you? Didn't know you posted on /. Do you understand any of the articles, George?
The funny part is that the only opponents of global climate change are American right wingers. Why? Is it ideology and not science who tells you what is right? The more you talk to American right wingers, the easier it is to understand why they are so damn dumb.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
I thought about debunking your arguments, but the more I read the more I see you're a troll.
Proof?
5) more co2 in the athmosphere will be automatically countered by more heat. That's how it works.
Some new science we got here.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Hardly. One side has most of the scientific establishment behind it. The other side has a few crackpots, "researchers" paid to provide desired data, and cherry-picked data. Only the willfully ignorant at this stage give equal credibility to both sides.
It's funny that the other viewpoints in science debates have now become "crackpots." There are groups of respected researchers that keep quite because of this viewpoint. How would you feel if the moment you mentioned Linux or Open Source in 98% of IT departments that you were put on the automatic fast track out of the company with really bad evals and then actively black balled from the industry?
You'd be pissed as hell. There are various researchers all holding pieces of the puzzle that know that current climate models are little more accurate than using SimEarth to predict climate and are aware of valid reasons that we should be looking at the sun or clouds/water vapor far more than CO2 as being important. If you've seen good researchers instantly labeled nutcases/crackpots for coming out shooting holes in the current theories, you'd start keeping your mouth shut and head down too. I believe that Earth is heating up somewhat. I don't believe there is enough evidence to say that humans directly or indirectly caused it at this point. I think that we need another 100-200 years of study. (That's not inline with the green agenda as they want massive social changes within the next 50 years not over 200 years.)