Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the let-the-science-flow dept.

United States 342

Lasrick writes Physicist Lawrence Krauss blasts Congress for their passage of the 2015 Energy and Water Appropriations bill that cut funding for renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and energy efficiency, and even worse, had amendments that targeted scientists at the Department of Energy: He writes that this action from the US Congress is worse even than the Australian government's move to cancel their carbon tax, because the action of Congress is far more insidious: "Each (amendment) would, in its own way, specifically prohibit scientists at the Energy Department from doing precisely what Congress should mandate them to do—namely perform the best possible scientific research to illuminate, for policymakers, the likelihood and possible consequences of climate change." Although the bill isn't likely to become law, Krauss is fed up with Congress burying its head in the sand: The fact that those amendments "...could pass a house of Congress, should concern everyone interested in the appropriate support of scientific research as a basis for sound public policy."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Rick Perry finally thought pf the third one? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47526803)

I guess those glasses did help.

Congress has its (collective) head buried... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47526811)

But it's not in the sand.

Re:Congress has its (collective) head buried... (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 3 months ago | (#47526851)

Logically if pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

Re:Congress has its (collective) head buried... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47526879)

Inbreeding

Price of using scientists as political pawns (4, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47526855)

You get involved in politics... you take sides... and there are consequences.

NPR for example is under similar threat of being defunded for the same reason. They took sides and when they stopped acting in the interests of all sides they became the enemy of sides they did not support... or the allies of sides they did support... and via the friend of my enemy is my enemy logic which is standard in politics... they became enemies.

Here someone is going to bitch at me like I had any part in any of these consequences.

Don't get mad at me. I didn't do anything one way or the other. All I'm doing is explaining what happened.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47526917)

Scientists taking sides? They took the side of reality. It's unfortunate for Conservatives that this reality doesn't line up with their views, but you can hardly blame that on the scientists.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (-1, Flamebait)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527017)

Depends on what you mean. If you're talking about evolution versus creationism then of course you're correct. But that isn't why the department of energy is looking to get their budget cut.

For one thing you've got all the "green jobs" "green economy" crap that the democrats pushed and used to justify shutting down existing industry and business... putting big taxes on such businesses... etc... on the theory that it would create a new green economy.

Because the democrats think it is literally impossible to kill the economy.

They think they can't raise taxes high enough or set regulations too high. They think they can do whatever to the system and it will always over come it. Which means they think they have no responsibility to do things efficiently or reasonably. You ask for them to be reasonable and they simply say its a political dispute. Well fine. Then the political games begin.

Game... the fuck... on.

Now you're going to sit there and attempt to be smug by claiming that the scientists are only doing their jobs and only pushing out the facts. This despite the fact that they were used as pawns in political power plays on an international level. Sorry. You're either in the game or your out of the game.

None of this showing up to take pot shots and then scuttling off before counter fire lands. The political powers that be don't work that way. On either side. You enter the game... you take fire.

I am not defending it. I am not saying it should be this way. I am saying it "IS" this way. You're a believer in science and reality?

Correct? This is reality. And its hypocritical to only get upset when one side does it. You want to get mad? Get mad at both sides.

I could go over the dozen people and organizations the democrats went after over the last decade for no greater reason then that they undermined something they were trying to do and thus had to be nuked.

But why bother. Here is the long and the short of it:

The democrats involved the DoE with their green energy push which was used to attack the "evil" "dirty" industry in the US which has been struggling for decades under increasing regulation. Look at US industry... is it thriving? Not really. And democrats thought in the middle of a recession that it was a good idea to attack what little industry we have left.

As usual... the democrats are fucking geniuses. So yeah... the DoE is going to get a shot across their bow if only to make them respect the lines they cross when they get involved in the political projects.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527087)

Now you're going to sit there and attempt to be smug by claiming that the scientists are only doing their jobs and only pushing out the facts.

Well, that is IN FACT what they're doing. I'm sorry if you find this unpleasant, but that's the reality of the situation.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (2, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527279)

That's fine. You're playing politics and it is in your political interest to make that point. I'm being honest, unlike you... and am willing to tell you why things are the way they are... and I'm trying to show you how things could change.

But you don't care about that. You just want to keep playing your political games. And that's fine. You're not the only one that can play and in situations where its more serious the opposition isn't going to be honest with you either. Because you use honesty against people. You use openness against people. These are weaknesses in the world you're supporting.

And so you challenge us to come up with lies, misinformation, and distortions to counter yours.

Like all good lies, most of what you're pushing are half truths. The point of which is to hide the lies in the clothes of reason and good sense.

Its an ancient rhetorical tactic. It fools none but the fools.

Re: Price of using scientists as political pawns (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527489)

get over yourself

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (5, Insightful)

Copid (137416) | about 3 months ago | (#47527549)

I'm not clear on the claim here. It seems to be, "You guys are using facts to support a position the other guys disagree with, so don't be surprised when they start directly attacking facts and the gathering of facts." I agree that this is typically what happens. I'm not so sure that it's fair to say that both sides are doing equally bad things when it happens, though.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (4, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527769)

No, I'm saying you used a scientific organization as a puppet for a political program that hurt a lot of people and is in the process of destroying industries, communities, and ways of life. And as a result, the political allies of the people you hurt are reaching out to disrupt, break, and punish those that did that.

The science is irrelevant to the issue. You hurt people and they respond. You disrespect people and they respond.

Why would you think you could go after all these people and destroy them with no consequences? Who do you think you're dealing with here? We're every bit as smart as you are sport. Even our grasp of science is much the same despite your probable assumptions on that issue.

What seperates us is not our education or ability to reason. It is our intentions and interests. You are trying to fuck people over and you used a federal agency to do it. You are now apparently shocked that those people you tried to fuck or actually fucked are going after that federal agency.

And you think we are stupid? Of course we're going after it. You're going to have to defend it now and have fun trying to get funding for the DoE now that you've turned it into a political pawn.

You've undermined the country with that shit. These agencies must remain impartial and neutral or they can't be tolerated. These organizations must be for EVERYONE. All sides. Mutual. Or they are undeserving of common funds.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (5, Interesting)

Copid (137416) | about 3 months ago | (#47527865)

No, I'm saying you used a scientific organization as a puppet for a political program that hurt a lot of people and is in the process of destroying industries, communities, and ways of life.

How, specifically? Fundamentally, is the DOE doing bad research? Are the results wrong? Or is good research simply being used to support political ends that you disagree with?

If I ask an expert if X is true and then use his answer to support my position, does that make him a "puppet" that my enemies should attack?

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0, Troll)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527963)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

I can't help you if you're willfully ignorant.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (5, Interesting)

rthille (8526) | about 3 months ago | (#47528239)

I agree, we shouldn't be subsidizing the green industries, instead we should just regulate the shit out of the extraction industries which manage to externalize so much of their costs.

How much should the coal industry pay for the ~1M deaths/year?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (-1, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47527999)

I wouldn't even bother. No matter how valid a point you make the Kool-Aid Drinkers will never agree with you, and just continue quoting their gospel and insisting it's "fact", not politics. I know: I've been there many times.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527195)

Actually, it's Republicans (well, Conservatives) who think it's possible the kill the government and make the world better. That's why they've been practicing starve the beast, stripping out revenue, privatizing all they can, and they think if the system collapses, it'll be better, so they think they have no responsibility to do things efficiently or reasonably. If anything, the more hysterical and outrageous they can be, the more likely it'll be to happen, so a net gain for them if there is a collapse.

This is supported by their base, which prefers a strong stand to a compromising one, case in point, their affection for Putin. And why don't you go over the dozen people and organizations the Republicans/Conservatives went over the last decade for no greater reason than they opposed something that the right-wing was trying to do and thus had to be nuked? It's not all been birther nonsense, though even that continuing fuckup has been demonstrative enough that they can't be trusted.

Responsible people wouldn't even tolerate that kind of horseshit being used. And no, despite attempts to blame it on Hillary Clinton, the responsibility for it is in the hands of the Right-wing that has pushed it and kept pushing it.

Now you're bitching over the Department of Energy being involved in improving the US's use of energy? I think that pretty squarely falls under the mandate. And you know who came up with half the ideas the Republicans are upset about? The Bush Administration. Yeah, that program Solyndra was involved in (and do note it wasn't just Solyndra, but you never hear the Republicans talk about any of the OTHER companies, heck they tried to get us to believe that Solyndra committed fraud, when the factory they made was actually built and producing solar panels), was a Republican idea. Same with most of the PPACA. And Common Core for that matter. So yeah, you want to know who attacks government? Republicans. Even when it's their own jobs.

And really, little industry we have left? US manufacturing may have fallen under China, but the net growth? Has still been upwards. Sure, employment has fallen. Why? Because productivity has gone up. Industry doesn't get ahead by keeping people around who do nothing. (That's politics, not business!)

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf

I don't know why people like you believe the US is some collapsing economy. You may as well believe the US is bankrupt, and has no possibility of paying its debts, when the US actually still has a greater value to its economic production than its deficits AND several times the assets as debts.

But the fact is, the US can't sustain itself on manufacturing as it currently is going. But neither can Japan, India, China, or Korea. We're too good at automation and due to the way wealth is getting concentrated, consumption can't keep going up to lead to more jobs. Germany has more hope than we do. They're supporting their people over their oligarchs.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1, Troll)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527367)

You're right, republicans have reduced federal funding hugely.

US federal funding on a per capita basis is only a fraction of what it was in the 19... anything. Oh wait... federal spending is at record levels and has on a steady trend upward for generations.

You're a fool.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527559)

Did you read what I said? Nothing about cutting spending. Certainly Republicans do make a lot of noise about cutting spending, but they never really do it. It's part of their process. Starve the Beast actually involves not cutting Spending, they want the system to fail, so if anything, Republicans don't mind increasing spending, as they think it will speed up the collapse, and since they're also foisting off privatization on us, they love how it gets more money into the hands of "private industry" for profit.

You're a fool if you haven't noticed this, they aren't actually trying to do what they claim. They don't want to fix the government. They want to end it.
 

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527791)

Nice... so republicans are to blame for your own tax and spend nightmare.

Tell me, are democrats ever responsible for anything? Or is that literally impossible? Because you seem to employ these hilarious circular logic loops where things that are good are the responsibility of the democrats indifferent to whether they had anything to do with it and things that are bad are the responsibility of the republicans whether or not they had anything to do with it.

And in this you think you have any basis to judge me or really anyone else?

This is the problem with your ideology. Its all promises and other people's money. You sit there and promise people everything... anything.

And you try to deliver it by jacking up taxes and making life miserable for anyone that actually is able to operate under your absurd system.

And then when all is said and done... you fail. The people that depended on you get fucked. Its bread lines and government rations if we're lucky.

I'm not saying other systems are great... they're just less deceitful and stupid.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47528125)

No, Republicans are to blame for THEIR own strip revenue and still spend more nightmare. It's their method. Am I not making this clear to you? They deliver it by cutting revenues, not cutting spending, and making life miserable for anyone that isn't actually taking advantage of how they've rigged their absurd system. And it will end up with bread lines and rations if we're lucky. Very lucky. And they're caught in time. Because their method is very clever. Deceitful, but clever. Deceit rarely works when it's stupid. A person has to be smart to do that.

That's the problem you have. You think other people who are up to no good are stupid. They're not. Anything but. So maybe I shouldn't call you a fool, but you are, if you believe the right-wing and their promises. They fail. They want failure. And the people that believe them get screwed. It's no different than an apocalyptic cult. They can't let the world go on, they can't avert a crisis. They need the end to come, and the sooner the better, because people do eventually wise up.

Really, why would you think Democrats should be responsible for that? Because they're not calling out Republicans enough on their bullshit lies? Well, I suppose you could blame them for that. Democrats have been complicit in letting Republicans push their agenda, Democrats have allowed their sanity to let the craziness in the Conservative Right-wing lead them astray.

Not the responsibility you want, I imagine, but really, you act as if Tax and Spend was what was happening. I know, I know, that's the standard Republican Conservative Right-wing Dogma. It's just empty rhetoric though. They only repeat it because it makes for good promises to make for people. But they don't deliver either. Like cutting spending. They don't do it. They may stop government from working effectively, but they still find somewhere to send the money.

And at best, you're falling for it. At worst? You see it, and you want it to happen as well, but can't admit it, anymore than the Right-wing Conservatives can admit they've become the party of the Solid South. Do you know what that is? Well, have you ever noticed how often certain Right-wing Shills repeat how Democrats are the ones who formed the KKK? Why are they doing this? Oh that's right, to demonize the Democrats of today, by past associations. It's a factual truth, for history. But for the present, it's an outright deception meant to mislead and deceive.

Or would you like me to get some other stories? Well, there is the time one Senator had the Congressional Record altered when they were called on their lie about Planned Parenthood. Or the times when some Republican said something dumb and got upset about it being quoted. And Mitt Romney provided a whole slate of them in his presidential campaign. Even in the debates, where Obama let Romney get away with far too many. I can only hope his mind was blown away by the unmitigated BS Romney was spewing. Though really, Obama shouldn't have been surprised, with the way Romney did a shameless about face on his own healthcare reform. Still, I'd have walked out instead of telling Governor Romney to proceed.

Speaking of that healthcare reform, did you know it DID provide for each state to set up their own exchange. What did Republican Governors mostly do? Put it off on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Even when they said they could have done it better and cheaper, they chose to screw their own citizens by leaving it to the Feds. Which certainly COULD have set up multiple interoperative systems instead of one, but then you know what the Right-wing would have done? Complained about that. Can't win with the conservatives. You always bitch and complain. Have you seen the lawsuit about how dare the IRS allow subsidies for plans bought on the federal exchanges? What's up with that? Why is the right-wing opposing that? Do they want people to pay more taxes then? Heck, next thing that the House has on its agenda is a lawsuit against Obama for exercising his constitutional authority by delaying part of the mandate. I know they had the Constitution READ aloud at the start of the session. Do you think they skipped Article II, Section 2? If I were the Solicitor General, and the House does file their useless lawsuit, I'd show up with a copy of the Constitution with that bit highlighted, and inform the Court that I wouldn't be wasting any more of their time. If the House wants to impeach the members of the IRS, they can do so without unnecessarily involving the judiciary.

Captcha? Illusion. How fitting. Don't keep buying the right-wing illusions. Disbelieve. Disbelieve.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47528221)

That's fine. Your tax and spend system is going to collapse eventually. And when it does the political model you've created on providing subsidies in exchange for political support will also collapse.

Its too bad you'll destroy the country in the process but you're a cancer for which there is apparently no cure.

The founders didn't account for you sadly.

When the US was founded, the founders tried to learn from the mistakes of past civilizations. From the romans, the greeks, the english, etc.

Their studies were not sufficient apparently because this is in part what brought the old roman empire down.

We might persist in this fashion for another 400 years. But we're unlikely to last much beyond that. You're addicted to deficit spending. And you've made it impossible to cut entitlements. Anyone tries and you label them as something horrible.

Fine... we'll just keep increasing spending at a higher rate then the US economy is growing. What could possibly go wrong.

The idea with cutting revenue is to force YOU to cut spending. You refuse to compromise on the issue. You just play games and lie.

If you play your game as well as you have so far you'll kill the country. Congratulations.

The only hope for this country at this point is that you either wise up... I won't hold my breath there... or you make some tactical error that causes you to suffer strategic losses.

Either way... its not looking good for America. It sad. Its a great country but you've infected us with a fatal disease. Here's hoping the civilizations that learn from us learn the lesson well.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527615)

Revenue == taxes, not spending. Starve the beast means cutting taxes (people happy because taxes are lower), keeping spending the same (people happy because they still get government service), and then letting the whole system pile up in debt and collapse (people don't care, because it'll be someone else's kids' problem. But not my kids, because I'll leave them a bunch of money when I become rich, which is bound to happen any day now).

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1, Troll)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527853)

We can't cut spending. You've worked very hard to make that impossible. Your whole political position is based on the idea of giving people stuff. You give people free healthcare, free food, free housing, free education, free transport, free cell phones, free anything and everything.

Except none of it is free.

You say you care about helping the poor and the needy. And i think for many of you that is true. But the reality is that many in your faction only give away these things as a means to power. That is they don't seek power to help the poor. They help the poor to get power.

Now helping the poor is great. I'm all for it. But when helping the poor is your means to power it is not in your interest for there to be fewer poor people any more then it is in McDonald's interest for there to be more health conscious people. Your ideology thrives on poverty. The poorer and more desperate people are the stronger you become. And whatever you believe, your politicians know this and exploit it on an ongoing basis.

Part of this desire for illegal immigrants from south of the border is because the democrats know it serves their interests to have as many poor ignorant people as possible on the government dole.

That is how your politicians get into power and keep it.

So I have very little patience for you claims to moral or ethical virtue on this issue. Your political party would be very much at home in the old Roman Senate. They played the same games. Gave free food to the masses. Grain ships arrived from Egypt daily providing the people of Rome with free food. The masses. The mob. And it worked out great for the empire and the senators until it rotted the heart out of the empire.

The specifics of the issue are likely beyond you and your likely tiny attention span. But the point is that I am deeply unimpressed with your silly notion that the republicans are MORE responsible for the sorry state of our budget because they want to cut taxes. You can't just raise taxes infinitely... and that is apparently what the democrats want.

They've never said how much is too much. They've never said what is fair. They always say they want more. And when they get that they want more again.

No. If the US government needs to go bankrupt to short circuit your parasitic political games then so be it.

You are buying elections. That is what you've been trying to do since the New Deal. Nothing more or less.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (4, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | about 3 months ago | (#47527243)

Yeah, let's see how the natural experiment with tax-cutting goes in Kansas compared to tax-crazy California.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (5, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 3 months ago | (#47527259)

Give me a break. This is all about climate change, something which has a solid scientific consensus. Conservative denial of this is just as bad as their desire to push Creationism and Intelligent Design into schools. These threatened researchers are not doing politically motivated work.

Face it, if these goons had their way they would be defunding anything that wasn't explicitly endorsed in the Bible.

Re: Price of using scientists as political pawns (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527339)

It's time to give up that meme. There never was consensus, and it was playing with numbers to say that 97% of climate scientists in 30% of the papers came to the same conclusion, they need more cash.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (-1, Flamebait)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527345)

Both sides are diverse political coalitions.

Just because you're a believer in the second amendment for example it does not mean you're a creationist.

In this case, captain strawman, we're talking about the department of energy. Which was not involved in creationism or evolution.

This is reprisals for the "green economy" push from the DoE.

That's what it is. Now you want to lie to yourself or to me about it? Fine... we can play games if you want. But THAT is the straight story.

Now did the DoE have to cooperate with the Green Energy push? Yes and no. They're subject to the whims of the executive but they could have also distanced themselves from the whole thing as well. Offering up their research without taking political sides.

Do you remember Solyndra? Do you remember the many green energy projects that went belly up? That was the fruits of the DoE green economy push. And the price? Aside from the billions if federal funding was the justification of increased taxes and regulation on "dirty" US industry.

The US coal industry is on the brink of collapse. You think its just big evil coal companies that care about that? There are communities that survive on the coal industry. Cut that off and you'll beggar their communities. So they're going to throw their support behind any politician that can save their community.

And then there is the question of where you're going to get energy from now that you've shut down the nuclear power plants and coal plants? Apparently no where? Have fun with that. So far you've just been increasing the cost of energy which just makes life harder for people that have tight budgets.

And then you have other industries that need cheap energy to be competitive... manufacturing for example... the manufacturing of solar panels ironically is not competitive unless you have access to abundant cheap energy.

Shutting down US coal and nuclear plants makes it harder to make solar panels in the US.

You can make them in china of course... they still have coal and nuclear plants.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527395)

I remember the lies the Right-wing told about Solyndra and the rest of the Loan Guarantee Program. They tried to convince us that Solyndra failed because they were frauds and didn't even build a working factory. When the reality is...somewhat different. The program overall is doing fine. Solyndra did have a working product. Their factory did produce their solar panels. Yet you would never hear the Right-wing talk about that.

And if you want to know why US Coal Exports have fallen, it's because the price of coal has dropped on the global market. Why would anybody sell coal for a low price when it's not going anywhere? What's the hurry? Why are you trying to get them to sell off their coal now? What's your agenda? Is it just like Keystone, where the plan is NOT to supply domestic needs, but to find an advantage for personal gain?

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1, Troll)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527565)

I didn't say they didn't build a working factory.

I said they failed.

How many people does solyndra employ today? Where are the green jobs?

This is the recurring problem with the left. They promise everyone a world of rainbows and unicorn cheeseburgers. But when push comes to shove... you fail. You don't deliver. All your promises don't come out... the reality checks bounce... and then what happens? People like me are stuck in some disintegrating city eating gruel and standing in line to get government rations.

Fuck that.

Is free enterprise perfect? Hell no. its full of exploitation, waste, perversion, and stupidity just like anything else. BUT... you have a CHANCE to make a better life for yourself. Total state domination means there is only ONE chance for things to work out and it all rests on the government doing everything correctly... which they never have.

I'm sorry. My family didn't cross the ocean to this country to live under a new nobility preaching a new state religion... utterly intolerant of any other ideology or faith.

People like you are why people left other places to come to the US.

There... you got me to rant at you. Happy now?

We don't need to be enemies. Our parents weren't and our grand parents weren't. You need to live and let live and we can live in peace. I'll watch your back and you can watch mine. But if you keep trying to control me through the state and coming up with various justifications to do so then we can't be allies. I won't let you put chains on me.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527935)

Indeed, I attributed the criticisms I offered to the Right-wing, not to you. "I" even used the third-party pronoun of "They" not "You" as "I'm" not confusing "you" with "them" so "you'll" pardon me if "I" ask for a response to what "I" said, rather than an empty and pointless defense to an attack "you" did not receive. I assure you, had I wanted to say that you lied about Solyndra, I would have done so directly with your own words. But I did not do so. Instead, I deliberately and willfully chose to express it as a problem with the Right-wing.

And had you asked me to substantiate that claim of their attacks, instead of simply made a defensive statement referring to yourself, I'd have provided examples of it in this post. But you didn't. So I'm just going to refer you to read my post again, and note what I did say in a more accurate fashion. Then you can reply again, if you can make one that pertains more directly to what I said.

But if your interest is in the effectiveness of the Bush Loan Guaranty Program (Which BTW, is NOT a single monolithic structure pursuing one singular goal as you seem to think the government must necessarily do), to save you some time, if you want to know about the rest of the Loan Guarantee Program, well, out of a 34 billion dollar portfolio, they've only lost some 800 million. Not too bad. But to hear the Right-wing tell of it, you'd think they'd blown the whole load, and not on a factory that actually produced the solar panels it was constructed to manufacture, but totally due to fraud. Again, the Right-wing. Not you, the Right-Wing. They won't even acknowledge ownership of it.

So if you want to see about the rest of the program, try:

http://energy.gov/lpo/loan-programs-office

Maybe one day the Right will take ownership of it, and admit they're the ones who signed that check. But only when it comes to being a success. Failure, failure they pretend they never do.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47528001)

Ima just a leaving this a here...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (-1, Troll)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47528007)

Which federal department did bush use to back up his loan program and did that program hurt democrats or undermine their interests?

If you can't show a federal agency he uses then your point is irrelevant to the issue.

If you can't show that it undermined democrats or hurt their interests then your point is irrelevant to the issue.

Regardless, you're committed to playing political games. That's fine. It doesn't confuse, fool, or surprise me. You're like a 4 year old playing hide and go seek that doesn't know I can see you feet poking out behind the couch.

You expect me to walk around saying at "where is he?!... oh where is he!?"

Why should I humor you? Its a game suitable only for the callow. I am too experienced and jaded to find any reason to pretend its valid. Its a stupid lie.

Come up with better ones... ideally ones you personally fashioned rather then simply cribbing them from the national party talking points like most of your pathetic ilk.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527465)

Hey look, another conservative who thinks the huge business interests that control his party give a shit about him or his needs.

We have regulations to protect ourselves from cutthroat businessmen who will do anything and everything to make a buck. Shit on regulation all you want, but without them Republican-owned businesses would be selling rotten meat, dangerous cars, untested medicine, etc. Because they did that before and we had to stop them, and they still try to do it now.

Fuck you, pothead.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527497)

Thanks, your strawman argument really put me in my place.

I didn't say the businesses care about us. Some of them do but the really big ones are obviously soulless machines that don't care about anyone.

That said, we need to pay our rent and our mortgages and put our kids through school.

Destroying the companies that pay us takes food out of the mouths of our children. And I guess you find it shocking that we'd have a problem with that.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527763)

Hey look, another leftist who thinks the huge government interests that control his party OR THAT THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF gives a shit about him or his needs.

The regulators are bought and paid off. Take a look at Obama and immigration right now. The regulation is whatever he says it is at that point in time and no one in the government is stopping him. That's called "shitting on regulation" btw for those of you in Rio-Linda.

For some reason you think words on paper mean something when the Democrats have gone out of their way to destroy the very concept of rule of law.

Fuck YOU, simpleton!

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 3 months ago | (#47527495)

For one thing you've got all the "green jobs" "green economy" crap that the democrats pushed and used to justify shutting down existing industry and business... putting big taxes on such businesses... etc... on the theory that it would create a new green economy.

Because the democrats think it is literally impossible to kill the economy.

Or ... just maybe ... you've got all the "green jobs" "green economy" crap because people with foresight realize that there are whole new industries waiting to be built which will provide a sound basis for growth and wealth creation for the next hundred years or so, as opposed to sitting on our asses and screeching about how that won't work, drill, Baby, drill! And, predictably, the Old Guard is howling about being made to actually pay for the full damage they are doing to the world.

Just sayin'.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527617)

No one is against you building something new.

The creation and advocacy is not what gets you in trouble.

It was when you tried to destroy everything else to make room for it.

And really, all you're doing is justifying using the DoE to attack industries and play political power games.

Fine... you think you have the right to do that. Good for you. You've now made the DoE a political tool in your political campaign.

Fact.

So guess what, sparky... the political opponents are going to attack that tool as well as everything else in it. Are you shocked? you shouldn't be.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527785)

Don't you think, for a moment, that teh evil rich rethuglicans would be controlling those "green industries" like Big Oil if they were, in fact, viable?

You think that's air you're breathing right now?

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (4, Informative)

jythie (914043) | about 3 months ago | (#47527503)

Not thriving? The energy industry in the US is insanely profitable. Profitable enough that they do not want to risk new technologies and the companies that support them taking off, so they push this crap you are spewing.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (2, Funny)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527721)

You're right... hydraulic fracturing on private land is booming in spite of the best efforts of the administration to kill it.

But that's only because they've been unable to stop it. And they've been unable to stop it because WE protected them.

The EPA and similar organizations have been trying to stop and forbid fracking for years. They're saying it causes earth quakes or that areas that have had natural gas in their well water for GENERATIONS only now are able to light their well water on fire.

Something you should look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

You won't probably. But this is what you're dealing with... its not giant soulless raping companies. Its people. And you're fucking them and you don't care. And for that they're going to reach out to their political allies and ask them to do what they can to stop it.

The DoE was used as a tool to hurt people.

So those allies are now going out to hurt the DoE.

I regret that all these things are happening. Its sad. But this is what happens when you play political games. There is a price. And denial simply reinforces the political battle lines.

If you lie to me now and say this isn't a political fight... it just sends the rhetorical signal that you're so committed to your games that you can't even admit it.

We're not asking for anything special here. Just leave us alone.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (2)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | about 3 months ago | (#47528209)

If industry isn't thriving, it's not due to taxes and regulation, as there's nowhere near as much of those than there were decades ago. Taxes are down, wages are down, deregulation has been running rampant, and the oversight organizations haven't been doing their job (FDA,FCC,SEC,etc.). If industry still can't survive, could it be because the CEO's have run off with the profits and used the money to buy the politicians? Or maybe it's because employees can't afford to buy enough products anymore?

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47528337)

... apparently math is really hard for some people. What portion of the total company revenue/profits do you think is spent on such things?

Its a tiny fraction of most companies. Even the most lavishly paid CEOs rarely make more then 1 percent of revenue.

And bribes to politicians are embarrassingly cheap. You can buy most congressman for about 10 thousand to 40 thousand dollars. Senators can be bought for about 40 thousand to 500 thousand if its a majority leader.

The expected return for lobbying is generally about 100 to 1. That is, if a company donates 50,000 to a political campaign they expect that to net them a minimum of 50 million dollars either in tax savings, government contracts, regulation changes, etc.

So no. Companies are not going broke buying whores and private jets for their elites. Some might be but that's usual. What's eating them alive is the bottom line.

And your fucking around with the regulatory and tax environment is the problem.

Full stop. Why is manufacturing thriving in southern states and dying in northern states?

Only difference is the regulatory environment. You're wrong and if you were introspective enough and honest enough you'd admit it.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527547)

Yet they did not side with the funders.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about 3 months ago | (#47527025)

I don't think any serious person thinks that Galileo woke up one morning and said lets do politics. No, he was at church, the story goes, say the chandeliers swinging, and ended up being persecuted by the politicians of the time.

Most scientists don't take political positions. They make observations, and when a consensus is reached, they sometimes take actions. For instance, when it became pretty clear that lead was dangerous, there was a movement to remove it from gasoline. This became political because some interests were only interested in quarterly profits, not long term costs to taxpayers. Fortunately the taxpayers won. For instance, there is really good science linking the buildup in the environment of lead to the increase in crime, and the decrease in crime of the past decade or so to the decrease in lead. It is not just correlation, cut actual causation.

Now, as far as NPR is concerned, compared to Fox News of course it looks biased. NPR is not going to invite John McCain on the air to talk about when he was a kid you could kill black people, and know he has to deal with a black man, as he has been saying this past week. But the thing about NPR is it probably does a better job of using the public air waves than other.

Here is the rub. Fox News can say and do whatever it wants because it does not use free public resources. This is the key. Free public resources, not funding by the government. The government funds lots of things, and that does not necessarily absolutely limit speech. For instance, many churches take money for schools, which frees up money that they then use to do stuff like encourage people to attack people going about their day to day business. For instance, one church in my area bought cameras so they could photograph people going into a gay club. But radio stations were given public bandwidth and were supposed to use it responsible ways. I think NPR is responsible and balanced compared to some of what I hear on the AM stations. AM stations are using free resources. We could take it back and make a great deal of money leasing it to other agents. We don't. They agree to use it, and should be more responsible.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (3, Funny)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527137)

I don't think any serious person thinks that Galileo woke up one morning and said lets do politics. No, he was at church, the story goes, say the chandeliers swinging, and ended up being persecuted by the politicians of the time.

Actually that's exactly what he did. If you know anything about the story with him, you'll know that the man attacked his rivals in science for decades. Humiliated them with insults and insinuations.

When Galileo presented his theories, he used as the evidence, many of the scientists he had been undermining for years.

A large part of the reason he had a problem was that he gone out of his way to be an asshole for many years. And when he was in a vulnerable place his enemies descended upon him to take their revenge.

And to further underscore the point since you're clearly totally ignorant on the issue... what happened to him? He was protected by the Pope. A much more powerful station then today.

Consider while you're saying it wasn't about politics, that the man flew in very ratified political circles and he did so on purpose. You think he didn't like politics or power or wealth or fame? Get real. Learn something about the man before you hold him up as evidence of anything.

Well it didn't help (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527981)

That his big proof that the earth moved was his explanation of the tides which gets pretty much every fact about tides wrong.(Pretty much his theory predicts one tide a day, it's the same time every day and it's the same height. That's all wrong.) That gave them quite the ammo to attack him with.

Re:Well it didn't help (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47528051)

I'll also point out that some of the evidence he used to back up his theory was collected by some of the people in the jury. And that he had gone out of his way to undermine and humiliate those same people for years.

The jury was clearly corrupt and had a major conflict of interest. But the man was also asking for it and was hardly without blame.

He ran around pissing people off, kicking over beehives, and shockingly the fool got stung.

The lesson no one learns but should is that you shouldn't build your career on annoying people to no purpose.

Re:Well it didn't help (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47528087)

Oh and don't forget that he originally published because his buddy the pope said he should. (Yeah, the fact he was buddies with the pope NEVER got mentioned in my high school history class.) IE he was using the fact he was BFF for cover. Then he turns around and has a character called Mr Simpleton give the church's position on things. Many historians think the pope might have taken that one personally. (Galileo could be a major asshole at times.)

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

Spinalcold (955025) | about 3 months ago | (#47528133)

Scientists should be political, scientists are not separate from the world, nor is science separate from what it is to be a human being. Scientists need to take part in a democracy, and that does not just mean voting, it means participating. They should be sharing science to educate the public on issues, they will have a different perspective even if the science isn't the whole story.

Second point is Fox News can say anything they want for two reasons; they don't have to tell the truth because they and argued that they are an opinion station; 2, the policy on 'balanced reporting' is so utterly stupid. Any issue can be shown to be decisive if they want it to be, get an expert on one side and an 'expert' on the other. It's what they do anytime they talk about climate change.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

kogut (1133781) | about 3 months ago | (#47527027)

>Don't get mad at me. I didn't do anything one way or the other.

Yes, you did. You made a variety of assumptions that you expect everyone to accept.

The pure libertarian argument against NPR has nothing to do with "taking sides," but with the principle of state-funded media period.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527169)

And why do I have to accept a libertarian perspective whatever that is... or especially care what you interpret is or is not libertarian?

And on the point of libertarians, are they known for being particularly good at politics? No they're not. They are generally regarded as being amongst the most incompetent practitioners of politics in the world.

Radical communists are better at politics.
Foaming at the mouth religious zealots are better at politics.
Shotgun dictators are better at politics.

Libertarians for all their good points are incompetent at politics and everyone knows it but the libertarians.

So, taking into consideration that libertarians are terrible at politics... your point is that most political factions don't do things the way libertarians would like... shocking.

Libertarians need to get tough if they ever want power. They need to make people fear them. If you play all care bear on the issue then the other factions are just going to slap you in the face repeatedly while laughing at you.

I'm not advocating that they do that. I'm saying they will do it if you're too weak to make them stop.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

kogut (1133781) | about 3 months ago | (#47527211)

I just wanted to get mad at you. I can't stand fatous, pre-emptive commands like, "Don't get mad at me."

Troll accomplished. Carry on.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47528041)

Libertarians are better than than the fake "small government" assholes that accept the TSA, the NSA surveillance, etc. all while saying the government is incompetent and cannot be trusted. Libertarians are also better than the people who claim they will respect people's fundamental liberties (like Obama) and then do the exact opposite. They're better, but let's face it... most people would rather have safety than have the constitution or fundamental liberties, which means that most people in the US are more suited to living in North Korea. So, in that regard, I guess their politics are inferior, simply because they tell the truth.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (-1, Troll)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47528143)

That's fine... its a free country and I won't tell you what to believe.

And for what its worth to you, I'm against the excesses of the TSA, NSA, etc. I'm with Snowden and etc. Again for what that's worth to you.

But at the same time, I take it as naive to think the libertarians are ever going to get anywhere.

They're not vicious enough to hold on to power. They're not willing to inflict pain. To drive their enemies before them and hear the lamentations of their women.

It is the naive conceit of libertarians to think they can do everything through some utopian political policy where everyone respects everyone.

They never will. And that belief is an expression of a fundamental misunderstanding of what respect is in the first place.

Most people only respect people to the extent they can hurt you. That sounds cynical but its just realism. If you want rights you have to make it clear to those that would take them that you can hurt them or better yet destroy them. And in that... you have respect.

What is mine is mine because if you try to take it... I will hurt you. And that is the only reason it is mine and the only reason I will ever keep anything.

Libertarians don't understand that on a basic level and until they do they'll never get anywhere.

The instant they have power... someone else will come along and take it from them. Candy from a baby. What are you going to do? You going to stop them? You and what army.

Libertarians need to brew a dark side. They need to make some deals with their own personal demons... short of that... they're going to be seen as cattle to be slaughtered at will.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47528243)

It is the naive conceit of libertarians to think they can do everything through some utopian political policy where everyone respects everyone.

What is this political policy that you're talking about? And what's with this melodramatic language you're using? Army? Cattle? Seriously? What are you even talking about?

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 3 months ago | (#47527131)

NPR has been the whipping boy of conservative politicians for decades. They have been threatened with defunding many times. Because of this NPR has developed alternative sources of funds.

At present only about 10% of its revenues come from the Federal Government. NPR generally uses these attempts by Republicans to defund as a fund raising motivators.

I have heard some NPR employees say they wish the Feds would defund them. It would allow them more independence in their editorial content and would likely increase their income.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47527249)

Really? And do they pay for their FCC radio licenses?

No they don't. They also didn't pay for their tv license.

Do you know what those are worth? Do you know how many radio stations NPR has nationally?

Now here you're going to say they're non-profit or something. Fine. Then clearly I can set up my own radio station on the same terms, right? No I can't. Only NPR can do it. If I try to do on the same terms, I'm going to have to buy spectrum even if no one is using it. And then I'm going to have to pay taxes and fees on it. NPR doesn't have to do that.

So on that basis alone NPR's estimation of funding is wrong.

But it gets worse, because a lot of their funding comes from publicly funded state and city agencies which themselves receive a lot of money from the federal government for similar services. Its therefore in most cases a shell game.

And while the incurious and stupid might be confused by such accounting gimmickry... I am not.

The other Eisenhower warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527979)

The left loves to repeat Eisenhower's warnings about a "military industrial complex" (from his farewell address) but they always seem to forget the other half of his warning:

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society." - President Dwight D Eisenhower, Jan 17, 1961

As the President who created NASA, Eisenhower was hardly "anti-science" any more than he was "anti-military"; he was warning of the corrupting influences of power and money. His view was that Science, funded by tax dollars, should INFORM but should not be allowed to push policies and was every bit as likely to be both corrupted by government money and use its power to corrupt politics as the defense industry.

Nobody in America argues against physics or chemistry etc; there is no "war on science". There ARE many people becoming increasingly wary of people who are pushing their beliefs and preferred public policies and who are using their science credentials to assert one of the oldest logical fallacies as support for their politics, the "appeal to authority". The fact that some people oppose political activists who happen to have science degrees does NOT make them "anti-science" any more than opposing a human being's political positions makes one "anti-human".

Re:The other Eisenhower warning (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47528073)

Very well said.

DOE is bad. Good for Congress (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47526871)

The DOE was established to decrease American reliance on foreign energy (oil, etc).They completely failed in their efforts towards taht and every other goal they established. They are only successful at milking the government gravy train of all they can get their hands on.

Re:DOE is bad. Good for Congress (1)

kogut (1133781) | about 3 months ago | (#47526995)

The DOE had another mandate when it was created.

Re: DOE is bad. Good for Congress (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527005)

You're confused about what is keeping the Department of Energy from achieving that goal. Namely a lack of authority. Who refuses to grant them the authority? Maybe the Handicapper General.

Que surprise? (1, Funny)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#47526883)

Our politicians are a bunch of pork-minded, short-sighted luddite political hacks more concerned with their privileges than with doing what's best for the American public?

Color me shocked!

SHOCKED I SAY!

Oh wait, I'm wearing my wrist strap and a neoprene suit.

So I guess I'm not shocked at all!

I propose August 10th as International Politician Assassination Day (IPAD).

Sure, riddling your local political climber may not immediately make the world a better place, but in the long run it will. And in the mean time, it'll be VERY cathartic!

Re:Que surprise? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 months ago | (#47526929)

If anything happens to anyone connected to the US government on August 10th, you're in for a lot of torture.

Re:Que surprise? (1)

brambus (3457531) | about 3 months ago | (#47526997)

Our politicians are a bunch of pork-minded, short-sighted luddite political hacks more concerned with their privileges than with doing what's best for the American public?

John Oliver nailed it [youtu.be] .

Good (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 months ago | (#47526921)

The DoE should be focused on shit that works. They should not be spending a dime on any "green" bullshit since it's destined to fail, nor should they be wasting any resources on any climate change "research" (politicking).

Get back to actual science. I don't yet have a fusion reactor in my home. What the fuck am I paying you clowns for?

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

mbkennel (97636) | about 3 months ago | (#47527039)


Funny, as it actually turned out, energy efficiency research for both electricity and transportation has worked very well, as have wind turbines and solar power. And quite a bit of that comes from DOE research.

Fusion reactor? Well, that's still 30 years away.

Of course the vast majority of DOE money is devoted to the nuclear weapons infrastructure and environmental cleanup from decades of nuclear weapon infrastructure.

For instance, take the FY 2012 budget of Los Alamos National lab.

http://www.lanl.gov/about/facts-figures/budget.php

What fraction would you say is on basic science? I expected 30%. More like 4%.

57% NNSA weapons
9% NNSA nonproliferation
7% NNSA 'safeguards and security'
7% work for national security (most likely intelligence agencies)
8% environmental cleanup
4% undefined 'work for others'
4% DOE Energy and Other Programs
4% DOE Office Of Science

Re:Good (1)

gewalker (57809) | about 3 months ago | (#47527055)

I would settle for nice modular neighborhood-scale TFTR reactors for now. I don't expect to see Mr. Fusion in the years I have left. I don't expect Congress to contribute to either of these either. I might wish they get rid of some unneeded regulations, but I have little hope of this happening either.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | about 3 months ago | (#47527273)

Get back to actual science. I don't yet have a fusion reactor in my home. What the fuck am I paying you clowns for?

For not having to breathe sulfuric acid (acid rain)? Or not having your river catch a fire? Yeah, all those damn progressives ruin everything.

Re:Good (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 months ago | (#47527379)

Are you confusing the DoE with the EPA? I think you might be.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | about 3 months ago | (#47527417)

Nope, I'm not confusing them. DoE provided necessary data on sulfur emissions and monitored the power plants. EPA was the one enforcing regulations, based on DoE data.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

Copid (137416) | about 3 months ago | (#47527567)

The DoE should be focused on shit that works.

The thing about shit that works is that you don't really have to do any science or engineering to it. Because it already works.

Scientists and engineers focus on the shit that doesn't yet work for a reason.

They don't care (4, Insightful)

WeeBit (961530) | about 3 months ago | (#47526923)

Even if the facts are true the bottom line is money trumps over common sense. They will be long buried before the shit hits the fan.

Re:They don't care (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47526961)

From what I've seen of your posts you don't know shit about how science works, you just want to politicize everything.

Someone has an agenda to push (3, Interesting)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 3 months ago | (#47526951)

The summary makes it out that the decision to repeal Australia's carbon taxes was a bad one.
It was a horribly broken system that didn't work.

If you accept that, then this "He writes that this action from the US Congress is worse even than the Australian government's move to cancel their carbon tax" becomes the same as "He writes that this action from the US Congress is worse even than a spark of sanity from the Australian Government"

Re:Someone has an agenda to push (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527061)

Does anyone actually buy into that? What a crock.
The removal of the Carbon Tax was entirely politically motivated.

Re:Someone has an agenda to push (1, Troll)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 months ago | (#47527433)

Evidently, people who are willing to log in and put their reputation on it are buying into that. You on the other hand, well..

Carbon taxes are bad ideas in the first place. They are simply convoluted and will not achieve anything substantial. There are better ways if results is what we are really after.

Re:Someone has an agenda to push (4, Insightful)

thrich81 (1357561) | about 3 months ago | (#47528055)

Care to explain why carbon taxes are bad? Every economist I've read who acknowledges that there are negative externalities with burning carbon based fuels says that the most efficient and non-market distorting way to get the users to pay the cost of the externalities is to impose a carbon tax. Anything else distorts the market for carbon based fuels or you just let the general population bear the cost of the negative externalities irregardless of how the gains from use of the fuels are distributed.

Re:Someone has an agenda to push (1)

Richard Dick Head (803293) | about 3 months ago | (#47528207)

Does anyone actually buy into that? What a crock.
The removal of the Carbon Tax was entirely politically motivated.

Politically motivated only because poor people were being wrung dry by the utility rate hikes caused by the carbon tax, and they rebelled. But that was the entire reason for politicization of climate change. It's all about money.

You can't get any significant money for your government programs from taxing the rich, so you need to tax the poor. But if you're progressive, you can't exactly overtly raise taxes on the poor...so...carbon credits. Brilliant!

Only Australian Labour completely screwed the pooch and people were seeing their bills double or triple...that isn't going to sneak by unnoticed. It'll probably be 20 years before they see a majority again.

Re:Someone has an agenda to push (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47528013)

We'll how do we know it didn't work?

As far as I know it did cut CO2 emissions.

For all we know a partisan right winger lied to by the Murdoch press is simply spreading the lie.

Re:Someone has an agenda to push (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47528199)

"It was a horribly broken system that didn't work."
Quite the contrary. It worked quite well - emissions dropped 12% since it came into effect.

Re:Someone has an agenda to push (1)

aybiss (876862) | about 3 months ago | (#47528357)

Yeah yeah. It was that horrible tax that was sucking heaps of money out of our economy. The one that was so hopeless it wasn't even sucking any money out of the economy.

Make up your mind.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527007)

Renewable energy is a load of hot air anyway. It's merely allowed to exist by the oil barons so it can keep nuclear energy busy enough for hydrocarbon barons can slip by and make their fast buck. Those short sighted fools.

Political diatribes (2)

amightywind (691887) | about 3 months ago | (#47527119)

Is this the same Lawrence Krauss who polluted the Scientific American for years with his leftist political diatribes? I have no problem with Comgress cutting the political dead wood from the Energy Department or any other department of government. There are enough activists in the bureaucracy.

Can I get a witness? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527139)

Anyone with HALF a Brain can see they are trying to destroy AMERICA.

DOE is the wrong place for studying *effects*. (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 3 months ago | (#47527145)

That should be the Departments of Commerce (NOAA), Interior (USGS) & Defense.

wrong priority (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527175)

I'm also a physicist. I don't think defunding science is a good move at all, but also the prioritization of modeling by Krause is not so good.

If climate change is real and we need to deal with it, resources at DoE need to be prioritized toward renewable energy work and climate change mitigation technologies, not further development of climate models.

By arguing that climate models need continuing funding, he is playing right into deniers' hands. Whether he intends it or not, he is supporting the political position that more work is necessary before a consensus can be reached on whether climate change is real.

Look, more scientific data will not convince politically motivated actors who don't trust you or your data anyway. The people who are going to trust modeling data are already convinced. So why are we asking for this? Yes, there are scientifically interesting questions to answer, but in terms of actually fighting climate change, this is counterproductive. Please stop.

Scientific consensus was reached long ago. The modeling guys did their job! They should take a bow and demand funding for alternative energy technologies and mitigation strategies when political fights break out. There's a role for modeling in mitigation work, but modeling alone can't be the priority in political discussions anymore.

shrill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527185)

yup thats the word.

Let's get one thing straight: (5, Insightful)

statemachine (840641) | about 3 months ago | (#47527201)

The Republicans, who currently hold a majority in the US House, are the ones who voted to strip the science funding.

Saying "Congress" makes it sound bipartisan. It's only the Republicans.

Re:Let's get one thing straight: (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527895)

Democrats voted for it too and Republicans voted against it.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]

It was bipartisan and it was "congress"

Facts, y'know...

Good News! (0)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 3 months ago | (#47527235)

Finally off the government dole. Let private industry develop the technologies. If there really is a market they will exploit it better than our wonderfully efficient government does.

Re:Good News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527461)

Well if you check the history of the DOE, it started with the SINGLE purpose of getting the US off foreign oil dependency. After 30 years (I don't remember the year) they haven't done a shred of their original intent. Private business has done all of that work and the DOE has attempted to regulate them out of business and keep the US dependent on foreign oil.

I would guess the best way for the DOE to accomplish its original goal is for it to completely disband. However, since that time they have expanded into other areas, but their original goal they have failed completely on. So, yes, get them off the government dole unless they are going to actually try and accomplish their goal.

Re:Good News! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527531)

If you'd take time to do some reading other than what your system has shoved down your throat, you might learn that some of the most important scientific discoveries in human history were not born from capitalist funding.

Re:Good News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527647)

You might want to do the same and find that some of the most important scientific discoveries were, in fact, born from capitalist funding.

Thomas Edison... Great American Socialist...

Status quo vs The Future (3, Informative)

MrKaos (858439) | about 3 months ago | (#47527555)

I watched Krauss on Q&A and WOW, what a great scientist he is. I thought to myself, this is one of the reasons people look up to America, because they have all these great thinkers that we can learn from.

Unfortunately Australia sometimes takes the lead in being backwards thinking and it's no secret here that many of our accomplished leaders in creating solar energy are now in America. Now it seems American politician are looking to Australia for methods to embed the status quo. This looks a lot like the Australian government scrapping the independent Climate Commission (made up of scientists), but legislating to avoid, what happened here, a relaunched Commission funded by the public as citizens instead of as taxpayers,.

And like a dying animal the status quo tries to kill the future. This is not a generational issue because some of the older generation know what the issues are and trying to make things better to minimize the consequences and costs the younger generations that will experience. However, the people controlling energy and its future, now, will be dead by the time the effects are here, so for them why wouldn't they have all the benefits of cheap power when they will never experience the downside of it.

They struggle for 50's thinking to be relevant in the 21st century, but have compunction imposing it and since the science is so convincing the only thing left to do is muzzle the scientists. It's madness.

Kill Department of Energy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527901)

The Department of Energy (DoE) has become the "Sex Tool" of Barak Obama.

Kill DoD i.e. Defund and schedule a divesture and imprison its employees and Washington Management.

Good riddance DoE and the Obama Brood infesting the White House.

Managing the nuclear stock pile and development of nuclear munitions is the parlance of the Department of Defense (i.e. Department of WAR).

DoE should never have been created in the first place !

anything Congress can defund (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47527913)

anything Congress can defund, they should. The Federal Government is a leach.

Re-elect no one. Ever.

Scope creep (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#47528181)

prohibit scientists at the Energy Department from doing precisely what Congress should mandate them to do—namely perform the best possible scientific research to illuminate, for policymakers, the likelihood and possible consequences of climate change.

I'm in favor of more research, but we already have several different departments that are researching that. The DoE is a department that has suffered from scope creep, they are in charge of unrelated things like genomics research. I'm in favor of genomics research, but once again, it's not really something you'd expect to see in the DoE.

Government should govern... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47528193)

scientists need to learn how to turn tricks so they can fund their research. Get government out of sugardaddy mode and especially out of bad science mode such as global climate change, etc...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?