Perverting science for politics

[lookout123]

shhh. he's our counterbalance to TW.


UG doesn't count since he has an orbit all his own.

[classicman]

idgit

[Troubleshooter]

We keep electing incrementally more retarded politicians, and it's only going to get worse.

Slowly...

Term by term...

We need to just get it over with.

We can do:



Or we can do:

[TheMercenary]

The fact remains that China and India far surpass the US in the amount they pollute in all areas including CO2 emissions. The world wants to point fingers at the US and get us to change the way we do business at great cost to our economy and give nations like China and India a pass while they pollute non-stop with minimal regulation because of an economic disparity. I call bull shit on that. We can reign in when they reign in. Make it a level playing field. It is not. Which is why we will never sign one-sided agreements like The Kyoto Protocol.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Make it a level playing field. It is not.

If we were to make it a level playing field, that would mean you would have to reduce your personal CO2 footprint by 3/4 to meet China's current per capita level.

Or do you reject the per capita measure, and think that all countries, regardless of their size, should have the same CO2 output? Luxembourg and the USA should have the same total level of emissions?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

If we were to make it a level playing field, that would mean you would have to reduce your personal CO2 footprint by 3/4 to meet China's current per capita level.

Or do you reject the per capita measure, and think that all countries, regardless of their size, should have the same CO2 output? Luxembourg and the USA should have the same total level of emissions?

It will never be level on an average per person basis, nor should it. That is trying get apples and oranges to be the same fruit, they are not and never will be. China and India will never be like the US, and hopefully the US will never be like China or India. "per capita" measurements are nothing more than statistical measures which simplify the comparisons. They do not work. Fun to look at and use as points in an argument but they are not practical from the standpoint of parity between developing nations who pollute to no end and a developed nation like the US or many Western European nations which are highly technically industrialized. I completely reject anything which uses simple statistical measures such as "per capita".

[Undertoad]

We are the highest per capita because we are the most productive per capita. What you really want to measure is carbon use across productivity.

The worst solution would be to do less with less, what we really need is to do more with less.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The worst solution would be to do less with less, what we really need is to do more with less.

I think the worst solution would be to do less with more.

[Troubleshooter]

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

I think the worst solution would be to do less with more.

No, the worse solution is to apply the same standards to developing countries like China and India to the US. That is pure stupidity.....

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We can reign in when they reign in. Make it a level playing field. It is not.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, the worse solution is to apply the same standards to developing countries like China and India to the US. That is pure stupidity.....

?

[TheMercenary]

A bit confusing, I admit. Let me explain.

China and India- They want different and much lower standards for their green house gases; they want the US and developing countries to have higher standards.

"We can reign in when they reign in. Make it a level playing field. It is not."

They need to have the same high standards as us, or we should not have to make any changes at all.

"No, the worse solution is to apply the same standards to developing countries like China and India to the US. That is pure stupidity....."

They need to have the same high standards as us, or we should not have to make any changes at all.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

A bit confusing, I admit. Let me explain.

China and India- They want different and much lower standards for their green house gases; they want the US and developing countries to have higher standards.

"We can reign in when they reign in. Make it a level playing field. It is not."

They need to have the same high standards as us, or we should not have to make any changes at all.

"No, the worse solution is to apply the same standards to developing countries like China and India to the US. That is pure stupidity....."

They need to have the same high standards as us, or we should not have to make any changes at all.

Screw changing it at all.

[Happy Monkey]

A somewhat amusing story:

Tom Harkin created the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine to "investigate and validate alternative approaches". Apparently they've only been doing the first part.

The senator went on to lament that, since its inception in 1998, the focus of NCCAM has been "disproving things rather than seeking out and approving things."
Skeptics have complained all along that Harkin and his allies founded this office to promote alternative therapies at public expense, not to test them scientifically. Harkin's statement at the hearing explicitly confirms that hypothesis.

It confirms the hypothesis as to the intent, but in execution it appears to be doing real scientific testing! And Harkin is disappointed in NCCAM, rather than the alternative medicine industry.

[classicman]

Interesting article HM. I found this to be rather teling as well.

Harkin doesn't seem to realize that by publicly pressuring an ostensibly independent research center to produce positive results, he's undermining the credibility of the center he worked so hard to create. If even if NCCAM does come up with positive results, Harkin's giving the scientific community an excuse to discount that research as tainted.

That's a shame, because if we're going to spend public money testing alternative medicines, researchers should be allowed to follow the evidence. Besides, ruling out therapies that don't work can be just as valuable as vindicating therapies that do.

Bold mine - well Hello!!!!