×

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!

Misuse of Scientific Data By the White House

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the drag-it-out-'til-2008 dept.

Republicans 577

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

577 comments

Wishy Washy (0, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388845)

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?

not true (3, Funny)

jcgf (688310) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388855)

Everyone knows that George W. Bush loves the scientific method so much that he would NEVER allow this to happen. Just look at his stance on that intelligent design nonsense....

There are many liars in the Evil White Ouse. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389545)

White House claims unreasoned & claimed papers.

The Inuted Stetas of Emarica is the number 1 emitter of CO2 in the world!

The Inuted Stetas of Emarica is the number 1 consumer of oil in the world!

Much oil that they consume => Much CO2 that they produce.

It's true 0% goodness and 100% evilness.

As Fry Would say... (4, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388865)

You mean the White House lied to the public? I'm shocked, shocked! Well, not that shocked.

Re:As Fry Would say... (2, Insightful)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388909)

Naah. What was that quote about never attribute to evil what can be sufficiently explained by ignorance...?

I do think we're dealing with a bit of both here.

Re:As Fry Would say... (3, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389013)

The only way they could claim ignorance at this point is by making a concerted effort to maintain said ignorance by ignoring any of the multitude of reports out there that contradict them. Going to that much effort to remain ignorant in order to avoid changing your opinion is evil in itself.

Re:As Fry Would say... (5, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389131)

The only way they could claim ignorance at this point is by making a concerted effort to maintain said ignorance by ignoring any of the multitude of reports out there that contradict them. Going to that much effort to remain ignorant in order to avoid changing your opinion is evil in itself.

A reformulation of CLarks third law by J. Porter Clark: "sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"

Re:As Fry Would say... (3, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389053)

Naah. What was that quote about never attribute to evil what can be sufficiently explained by ignorance...?

I do think we're dealing with a bit of both here.


Hanlon's razor

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Ignorance is too kind a word for this. It's purposeful and willful stupidity.

Re:As Fry Would say... (4, Insightful)

ajanp (1083247) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388935)

Not sure about you, but I'm here in America. I'm confident that I will have completely forgotten this issue a few hours from now. If something good is on TV, the entire scandal will be out of mind by the time I'm finished dinner.

Re:As Fry Would say... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389295)

I'm confident that I will have completely forgotten this issue a few hours from now.
Well, I didn't even read the article or the summary, so I've got you beat by a few hours. ;-)

Ah, a nice flame war (5, Funny)

Richard McBeef (1092673) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388867)

The ensuing hot air will contribute [a] little.

Re:Ah, a nice flame war (2, Insightful)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388993)

Yeah I mean, whatever happened to at least trying to ensure some unbiasedness in the articles? It's all well and good to link to a biased article and the mention the bias in the editorial but flat out saying the white house is lying? That seems a little too biased for my liking, I'd rather have a somewhat balanced summary that says the article claims the white house is lying than this summary.

But, then again, I'm one of the .01% of people on /. who don't think that the current White House is an incarnation of Cthulhu so I guess this bias makes everyone else feel all warm inside :P.

Re:Ah, a nice flame war (3, Insightful)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389029)

What, as if "unbiased" means "ignore blatant evidence of lying and corruption" now?

Is that sort of like "truthiness"?

Re:Ah, a nice flame war (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389031)

That's really all this is. It's cherry picking on both sides. The White House noted that the economic growth of the US compared carbon emission growth is greater than that in Europe. In fact, both have shown increased carbon emissions. The article focuses on the fact that the total growth of greenhouse gasses is less in Europe. Different metrics, neither of which come close to painting the whole picture.

The .pdf might just as well be a blog for its purpose and analytical utility. I really don't think it even belongs on Slashdot.

Obligatory recommended reading (5, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388875)

For everyone interested in this topic, Chris Mooney's [wikipedia.org] The Republican War on Science [wikipedia.org] is required reading.

Re:Obligatory addendum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389247)

(short excerpt link, but watcha want, effort? pff)

The Assault on Reason [time.com]
by our fearless runner-up A1_G0r3 is also potentially apt, but I'm annoyed that he felt it necessary to publish a physical book tome.

I mean, the guy invented the interweb for crissakes...
Post the book up for free like the rest of the science mafia.
Earn flask cred. Save a tree. Meh.

And yes, he was on the daily show last week hocking it.
How else would I have remembered he still existed? (joke al)

PS: -1 offtopic, but doesn't the voting machine issue (www.diebold.com) start looking less tinfoil about now?

WHY TEH HECK ARE THEY NOT USING CONTROL OF CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE THE UNDERMINING OF OUR "DEMOCRACY"?

Is there a more important issue in the next 18 months? I'm not so sure. Stay tuned.

hard to believe (1, Interesting)

crAckZ (1098479) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388883)

with alot of eastern countries mostley not using cars i find this hard to believe. they also have better public transportation. Seems like in america i see big SUVs and trucks everywhere. i cannot comment on industrial pollution since i cannot link to any facts. and besides, the white house wouldnt lie. they always tell the truth. i almost couldnt say that without laughing

Re:hard to believe (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389349)

yep, I just sold my Camry and bought a 1979 Camaro and a 2003 Chevy Tahoe. That's progress!! If you add the fuel mileage together on both vehicles you get 32! Damn good mileage!
Keep in mind that I am married with no kids.

Why is this news? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19388885)

This is the same way the White House got us into the war in Iraq. They only ever choose the evidence that suits them. Move along folks. (me wipes tear from my eye)

SAMPLE SETS IN STATS ARE EVERYTHING! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389033)

True - they operate on the fact that if the T.V. tells you "4/5 dentists chew Trident", it must be TRUE (even if the dentists are given free samples or paid to say that, lol)!

(Sample sets are EVERYTHING in statistics... anyone who's taken stat 1 & 2 alone know this)

I.E.-> For those that don't? Well, choose the right sample set of data (OR, in this came, from a body of data) to display, you can make folks believe nearly anything!

(Those creating the "charts/graphs" know 9/10 viewing won't actually research the evidences, data, & how/what/where/when/why/how etc. et al it was collected & assume "that's the way it is baby, for real: this 'study' showed me so!")

APK

P.S.=> I know 1 thing: Bad news today? It's quickly forgotten, because of the bad news tomorrow, & the 'spin masters' know this, above all else... apk

Re:Why is this news? (2, Funny)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389129)

"me wipes tear from my eye"

You see that? You see that you MOTHERFUCKERS? You made the cookie monster cry! Cookie Monster! For shame! Add this to the long list of Bush attrocities...not the worst, not the last, but I never thought they would go this low. Jesus...

what do you expect from a mass murderer? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19388937)

George W Bush deserves the death penalty.

They All Do It. (0)

sycodon (149926) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388941)

All claims by all governments are based on cherry picked data, EU included.

If you are shocked, then you are either fresh off the turnip truck or you are not really shocked, but just see an opportunity to bash Bush.

Re:They All Do It. (-1, Troll)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389077)

Exactly, and the US emissions pale in comparison to the Chinese and soon the Indian subcontinent. The US is doing better and in some places quite well. Eastern Europe (the old Soviet Bloc) still has serious issues. This is simply Bush bashing. If Clinton/Obama/YourCandidate released the same news you'd be all over it as great news. Go read the Skeptical Environmentalist to show how EVERYONE manipulates data, some even make it up.

Re:They All Do It. (4, Informative)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389213)

Exactly, and the US emissions pale in comparison to the Chinese and soon the Indian subcontinent.
You know, you liars have been climing that for a long time, yet China (with about 5 times as many people as the US) still hasn't passed the US in CO2 production.

Re:They All Do It. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389287)

I am sick of people countering arguments with just words. Put up the link where you got your info or shutup.

Re:They All Do It. (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389409)

We really can't tell if they do or don't as getting hard data in China is impossible. I think they do. there are NO factory pollution controls in China, fossil fuel (coal, wood) is burned by 99% of the population and it has at least as big an industrial base as the USA. Auto emissions are rising there and falling here. We have a lot more autos but they have a lot more people.

Re:They All Do It. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389447)

While I am sure that the US is still much higher per capita, it makes a lot more sense to worry about the consumption of CO2 production than it does the production itself, as it prevents nonsense like pretending that aluminum made elsewhere doesn't pollute.

Re:They All Do It. (2, Interesting)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389383)

The idea behind democracy is that there is an effective opposition to the government, that will call them to task if they attempt shenanigans like this. Government's might attempt stuff like this all the time; it is a measure of how well-functioning the democracy is as to whether they get away with it.

Trying to pass this off as 'everyone does it therefore it is OK', is WRONG! It is never OK, and the fact that the USA seems to get away with it again and again and again, is not a good indicator for the political health of that country.

Re:They All Do It. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389385)

A few years ago, I was assigned to write a story about a policy analysis that predicted the economic consequences of a new school funding plan in my state (adding about $1 billion to k-12 funding). Just for grins, I found an equally compelling study that found the opposite conclusion (though it wasn't based exactly on the school funding plan, it did model the state economy and the impact of new taxes, government hiring, etc.) I called the writers of both studies, who freely admitted their models are based on assumptions -- such as that taxation and the new government jobs it supports are a drag on the economy. Then, I talked with a few state lawmakers, who all also freely admitted that what they and their collegues do when confronted with all these conflicting studies is pick whichever study supports their pre-conceived notions and call it "evidence."

Re:They All Do It. (1)

scribblej (195445) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389391)

It's true; no one should be shocked by this. But that doesn't mean it's OK, or even acceptable.

Being a patriot means wanting your government to do BETTER than those other guys. That they all do it isn't an excuse for someone who loves his country. Bush doesn't.

The US doesn't get the credit it deserves... (1)

Riverman5 (1018024) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389469)

One thing the United States aught to get more credit for is R&D for new technologies. All the latest and greatest green tech is American. Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries for hybrid cars. Thin film solar cells. Composite fuselage airliners by Boeing. Lots of work going on in hydrogen fuel cells in Japan and the United States. Gotta give France some credit for their enthusiasm over nuclear energy and ITER (although ITER surely won't pay off for at least 100 years, if ever). But really, name one green tech with Europe's name on it? "Smart" cars?

All cited articles are from the same source (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388965)

The submitter, the analysis, and the relevant claims in the first linked article are from the "Pacific Institute". That's fine and doesn't mean anything about it is incorrect, but probably means there is an agenda at work - surprise, just as there's an "agenda" served by the White House, too - and this is also a factual statement:

Pick any year since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in 1997, Mr. Bush should have said, and the U.S. CO2 emission performance is superior to that of all major Kyoto parties, including and most notably Europe (CO2 being the focus of the many pending legislative proposals).

Also, the submission complains that the US metric shown in a positive light - surprising they'd choose something that reflects positively! - is that because only CO2 emissions are considered. Well, CO2 emissions account for nearly three quarters of all greenhouse gas emissions [wikimedia.org] .

Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time. There is no magical time in terms of statistical length or any point in time that is any more valid than any other. You can argue that the submitter is "cherry picking" his own data. It's laughable to say there is a "right" base year.

Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

cokane2 (600954) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389099)

China and India pollute substantially less per person than any EU country or the US. It would be absurd to bind them to a treaty when other countries are polluting 10x if not greater than those nations per capita. It would be like saying: "We got to industrialization first, so we're the only ones who get to benefit! Oh and you have to clean up just as much as us even though we've made a bigger mess." I'm really sick and tired of hearing the "Why isn't China/India bound by Kyoto?" argument, especially on this website. 1. As I stated above, they are polluting far less, even if all Kyoto countries were to reduce emissions by the 5-10% demanded of them, and China and India doubled their GHG emissions, EU and US would still pollute more per capita. http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/?2275 [unu.edu] Gives an insightful image of pollution levels worldwide. http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions .php [carbonplanet.com] as does this. Note China: 3.05 India: 1.34 USA: 24.09 As anyone can see, they have a LONG way to go. 2. Kyoto only binds countries for 2008-2012. After it expires, expect the UNFCCC to draft a new climate protocol. One day, when India and China are serious polluters they will curb emissions.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389235)

China and India pollute substantially less per person than any EU country or the US.

So? They're growing at a much, much faster rate. And the statement you chose - that it would be like saying, "We got to industrialization first, so we're the only ones who get to benefit! Oh and you have to clean up just as much as us even though we've made a bigger mess," - is telling, but it's actually the opposite of that: it's more like, "We got to industrialization, but we'll allow other developing economies to artificially pollute much more, leaving Western economies at an even greater disadvantage than they are now when competing."

One day, when India and China are serious polluters they will curb emissions.

Oh, they will? Really? Who's going to make China curb emissions? And China has [kenyon.edu] plenty [economist.com] of [wikipedia.org] problems [zmag.org] now [go.com] .

So yeah, it's not "fair" if China, especially considering the force it is already, isn't held to any standards at all; or, rather, would you find it surprising that there are other factors to consider in the US not simply wanting to happily allow a severe competitive disadvantage, and frames the discussions based on that? This isn't a "Republican" issue or a matter of "misuse" of scientific data. It's an issue of pure economics. Might it be treated more gingerly by more liberal politicians? Sure. But it wouldn't be a lot more than lip service, because no matter who is in office, the economic and other threats from China in particular are very real, and emissions are but small part of that equation.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389323)

I think it's much more like saying, "we've been destroying the planet to get rich and now we won't stop because you might get as rich as us". It's a bullshit excuse. We could reduce emissions now and worry about them later, or we can keep throwing more gas on the fire.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

ajanp (1083247) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389395)

Comparing the pollution per capita of China/India to that of the US seems like a poor method for comparison (by your reasoning, Australians are the real bad guys since they are at 27.54 CO2eMt/person compared to 24.09 in the US). Ofcourse it will be lower because China and India have populations close to or greater than 1 billion people (based on the linked stats, China has ~1.2 billion and India has 914 million), whereas the US has 280 million (2003). Just because the pollution per capita is lower than the US, doesn't mean you can say that they are "polluting far less".

Looking at the raw amount of pollution shows that yes, the US has the largest amount at 6746.00 CO2eMt (2003), and the entire European Union is second at 4030.00 (1999). But China is next on the list at 3650.00 (2004) and India (2001) is up there too at 1228.54. Unfortunate that the comparisons aren't from the same year, but the practically exponential growth and industrial expansion of China and India is increasing the amount of pollution they are causing by significant amounts. Even 5-10 years from now it could be argued that if standards aren't put in to limit their environmental impact now, it could completely marginalize what is being done with Kyoto.

Either way, the incredible rate of both population growth and industrial growth in China and India shouldn't be a problem for the next generation.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389171)

Not only is any other year just as valid, but Bush is talking about Bush's policies. I know we sometimes forget that Bush hasn't always been in office, but he fist took over in 2001. So using 2000 as the base year actually makes a lot of sense - why should he take the blame or credit for what happened before then? He's not claming that Clinton's policies helped the environment. He's claiming that Bush's policies helped the environment.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

locust (6639) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389197)

You're right about the economic impact. Its the economic impact of continuing to sell giant SUVs while you're competitors are investing in greener and more fuel efficient cars. GM can argue all it wants about how hard it is to raise the CAFE standards while Toyota is putting it out of business.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (2, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389331)

*Sigh.*

The good ol' SUV argument. Knew that'd come in somewhere!

1. All of GM's full size trucks and SUVs - GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, and pickup trucks and fleet vehicles - will have the most advanced two-mode full hybrid system to date [autobloggreen.com] on nearly any consumer vehicle for MY2008.

2. GM's bread and butter is the full size trucks; it can't compete with Toyota in the car market, and it doesn't have anything to do with "greener" (though increased fuel efficiency is a valid pragmatic argument for many). So GM is going after the market it knows and knows well with more efficient high-technology hybrids. Seriously, the amount of engineering in these things is incredible.

Hybrids are not some panacea; it's all about increasing efficiency for the type of vehicle in question. It's frankly no one's business to judge how big is "too big"; it could be argued that a Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid are "too big" or "more than someone needs". You could even argue that carpooling or small 1- or 2-person vehicles would serve many just fine. Then we start going down the road of taking away personal freedoms and mandating sizes and shapes of vehicles. I suppose in some nations, that would fly.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389477)

Have you seen the Tundra? I saw a 2006 recently, and though I haven't seen anything that new from Detroit, my impression is that the Tundra is in a class all by itself. Being good at what they do, Toyota even builds them in the US.

Also of note are all the silly advertising that they are showing on the television, where they put 'actual demonstration' on the screen.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

BeanBunny (936648) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389243)

Dave, you are right on the money. The problem with trusting any data, be it from the White House or from anyone refuting their claims, is that an agenda is usually at work. If someone is trying to prove a point, they will tend to utilize data that supports their view and discard data that does not.

Of course, in and statistical or empirical analysis, this is very normal, and often necessary in order to draw conclusions in the first place. Sometimes you have to throw out data simply because it doesn't fit, and that doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. But it is very difficult to find someone presenting a view or theory who does not have a specific position themselves, a position which influences which conclusion they are likely to draw.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389277)

Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.
Much is made of the fact that China will very soon surpass the CO2 emissions of the US. But our population is less than 25% of theirs, so our emissions are still 4x China's per capita! Moreover, much of China's pollution comes from meeting American demands for cheap steel and manufactured goods - if anybody outside China weilds influence over their polluting ways, it's us and our big credit cards. Let's stop using China as an excuse to not clean up our act.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389411)

Much is made of the fact that China will very soon surpass the CO2 emissions of the US. But our population is less than 25% of theirs, so our emissions are still 4x China's per capita! Moreover, much of China's pollution comes from meeting American demands for cheap steel and manufactured goods - if anybody outside China weilds influence over their polluting ways, it's us and our big credit cards. Let's stop using China as an excuse to not clean up our act.

You're right, of course.

But we don't live in a vacuum, and China is a real economic competitor and a very real and emerging strategic threat to the United States in may ways.

The other issue is that if x amount of emissions are terrible, by that argument, is it really okay to allow China to have more emissions, just because they have lower emissions per capita? Especially when the global environment situation is as dire as some paint it?

So yes, it may be unfair to China, but if the US and EU are going to tighten up their belts with regard to emissions, China should absolutely not be allowed to have this unrestricted emissions growth just because they have more people. China will soon become the biggest user of fossil fuels and the biggest emitter of CO2 - and this is with its very aggressive nuclear power programs.

The other economic factors - i.e., that we purchase Chinese goods - are not anything that can be solved, unless you favor protectionism or isolationism for the US and its economy, which would be unhealthy not to mention impossible. So as trite as it may sound, China's skyrocketing emissions and resource usage are a very real consideration when the US (and EU) decides how it will react.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389565)

China also has plenty of internal demand for all sorts of everything. The recent boom in China has led to worldwide increases in the prices of weird stuff like copper and cement. I don't remember where I read it, but China is on track to add more households in the next 20 to 25 years than *exist* in the U.s.

It's just kdawson... (1)

ChePibe (882378) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389371)

Speaking of agendas...

This is quite typical of kdawson. Just be glad it wasn't a mention of the "stolen" 2004 presidential election.

I'm no partisan Republican myself, but I'm getting fairly tired of kdawson. I don't want to see /. become the next Rush Limbaugh site, but the slow emergence of slashkos is concerning as well. Then again it's the editors' right to tilt one way or the other, so whatever.

Well, see ya' in modded-down-to-oblivion-ville.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

oasisbob (460665) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389393)

Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time. There is no magical time in terms of statistical length or any point in time that is any more valid than any other. You can argue that the submitter is "cherry picking" his own data. It's laughable to say there is a "right" base year.

Isn't this the reason that the UN fixes 1990 as the base year? Otherwise, anyone could pick any year they wanted, just as you say. Granted, I'm trusting the article when it says that "Article 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change specifies that all greenhouse gas emissions analyses are to use 1990 as the base year". However, it seems to me that standardizing on a "right" base year is very reasonable.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

Riverman5 (1018024) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389507)

Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.

Exactly the problem, Europe has mostly just shifted production over to China, where the environment is a lower priority. Lets just wait for China to realize that they've got a problem.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (4, Interesting)

demachina (71715) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389515)

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.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source (1)

pesho (843750) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389519)

What are you trying to illustrate with this post? How selectively picking data can prove any point? Why didn't you post the link to the entire article [wikipedia.org] instead of linking to one of the figures?

Although CO2 is 3/4 of green house emissions it is not the most potent greenhouse gas and it isn't even the fastest growing greenhouse gas. That's why the Kyoto protocol includes methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs and PFCs.

The pacific institute article also has a valid point why 2000 is not a good reference point for the US CO2 emissions. There was a signifficant drop in air travel after 9/11 and the US economy was slowing down.

Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.

This type of argument stopped making sense to me shortly after I left elementary school. It is childish to say "I am doing it because he is doing it.". Besides, China and India do not have the output of greenhouse gases that US has, even if you do not calculate it per capita.

EU has restriction on carbon emissions. It also has a heavy 'ecology' tax on the gasoline and diesel fuels. EU countries (Germany and UK in particular) were phasing out coal as energy source for years, unlike US where coal use has been on the rise. Who the hell gave you points for being informative?!

Behold! Your Tax Dollars At Work... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19388975)

Constructing greater and more elaborate lies, and applying the finest of lipstick to pigs.

Dems do it too! (-1, Troll)

jlbooker (1074833) | more than 6 years ago | (#19388981)

And just what exactly do you think Al Gore (inventor of the great internet, mind you) did with his movie? He showed only the subset of evidence which supports global warming, when there's plenty of evidence against it too. It's nothing new to only be getting half the truth from either side. Btw, if you didn't see Al Gore's movie, let me sum it up for you: "OHH NOOOOEZ!!! The world is coming to an end!!!"

Re:Dems do it too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389357)

I weep for the future

Re:Dems do it too! (1, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389397)

And just what exactly do you think Al Gore (inventor of the great internet, mind you) did with his movie? He showed only the subset of evidence which supports global warming, when there's plenty of evidence against it too. It's nothing new to only be getting half the truth from either side.

Likely because the evidence ont he other side is very very sparse and comes from mostly "vested" parties (ie. EXXON) or noted shills (Seitz et al). Mostly non-peer reviewed corporate paid studies.

Btw, if you didn't see Al Gore's movie, let me sum it up for you: "OHH NOOOOEZ!!! The world is coming to an end!!!"

I hadn't seen it since I avoid propaganda from btohs sides but the whole "OMG we're Fucked!" camp annoy me. At the very very worse we'll have famine and violent storms. It wont' kill us all, and I'm certain we can deal with it.

Re:Dems do it too! (1)

CDPS (1106089) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389559)

Of course Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet--that was wording that the RNC (Republican National Committee) came up with specifically to discredit Gore--and which has been repeated by the media and people like you either purposefully to smear Gore or because of ignorance/incompetence. As for there being "plenty" of evidence against human effects on global temperature, your belief is contradicted by statements signed by hundreds of scientists that study the issue--who believe that the preponderence of evidence is now that humans are almost certainly having an effect. Your hypothesis that Dems are just as bad as Bush at misusing science also fails to note several unprecedented actions that scientists have taken to protest Bush's misuse of science (e.g., http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/10600-sci entists-condemn.html [ucsusa.org] ).

Unsurprising (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389015)

The White House is full of graduates from Regent University - Pat Robertson's fiefdom. Since Pat Robertson is willing to go to great lengths (including calling for the assassination of foreign leaders) to impose his anachronistic views, it stands to reason that his graduates will think nothing of lying when it push theirs.

Re:Unsurprising (1)

Riverman5 (1018024) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389527)

It's a Pat Robertson conspiracy to destroy the earth! Where is captain planet when you need him? Oh that's right, he gave all his money to the UN.

Bias for Bias (1, Offtopic)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389051)

When all the data are used,

Let it be noted where the article submitter is from...

Re:Bias for Bias (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389193)

The word "data" is plural (singular: datum). Or is being grammatical a bias?

Re:Bias for Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389299)

Whether or not it's grammatically correct, no one says it plurally here in the states, unless they learned english somewhere else.

Re:Bias for Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389491)

yeah its a bias. propper gramer and speling show that the righter is educated which means hes librully biased.

Re:Bias for Bias (1)

setirw (854029) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389431)

What, an educated background? Contrary to this poster [slashdot.org] 's claim, using the word "data" correctly is not a non-American idiom. 95% of educated people I know who were born and raised in the U.S. know that "data" is plural.

BTW, there are approximately 1,160,000 occurrences [google.com] of "data are" on U.S. government websites.

The rising importance of media (4, Insightful)

chriss (26574) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389075)

I just watched two movies: Control Room [imdb.com] (2004) about the media coverage of the invasion of Iraq and Al Jazeera's role and The revolution will not be televised [imdb.com] (2003) about the role of the private media in the coup in Venezuela in 2001. Neither of the two might be called very objective, but I see how difficult it would be to find an audience for more scientific analysis.

The common theme in both is how important the media has become. Now this is not really news, but during the last decade the media reaction has been part of e.g. military operation (embedded journalism) and there is a tremendous effort to control the pictures. Not so much to suppress any reporting, since it has become obvious that this will never work, but to control what is fed to the press. And unfortunately the press is not yet up to speed to get their informations from a wider number of sources.

Now with blogging, youtube, flickr etc. there seems to be a much wider range of possible information sources, even harder to suppress than in the past. But today we face the problem which of these sources to trust, there are just so many. There are attempts like newstrust [newstrust.net] , which tries to be a sort of slashdot moderation system on top of existing news. But I think we need much more of this. Like greasemonkey allows you to attach things to websites that the authors did not intend to be there, we need the option to attach other sources to any news and have a large body of people vote on which of these sources should be taken into account. I have no clue how to realize this, but this is a typical case: the government using FUD to strengthen their position. People can react and argue with the claims, but there should be a way for these comments to reach the public, not only via sites like slashdot, but by default. With the increase of media sources and media power we have to become better at using and evaluating media as a group, not only as single viewers and readers.

this white house lying is not news. (0, Flamebait)

swschrad (312009) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389083)

it's the latest gotcha is all. those guys lie like a preacher at a lap dance parlor.

Did anyone here actually RTFA? (2, Interesting)

achillean (1031500) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389087)

I think the author makes some good points, but to say that his time-frame (1990 - 2004) is the "right one" misses the argument the other scientists want to make. They purposely chose 1997 as a starting point because that's when the countries officially decided to do something about greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody's denying that nothing was done pre-1997, so using that data doesn't offer any real insight. Yeah, they still should've used the other 5 greenhouse gases in their analysis, but w/ all the crazy liberals talking about "carbon neutral"-whatever, CO2 is kind of a big buzz word when it comes to addressing emissions. And using 2000-2004 as a time frame is really short, but they do mention that they're not too hung up on this short-term data:

It's always going to go up and down, and so you can't pick any one moment in time to gauge your progress. As I said, this is a marathon, it's not a sprint. We want to see what the overall trend lines look like.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that the original analysis that the US is doing better than Europe isn't complete BS and that more people should read the article and try to understand both sides of the story instead of spreading more FUD.
Cheers

I hope this isnt' suppose to be news ? (1)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389103)



The whole purpose of data/statistics is to prove your point. The US government has always misrepresented data to prove it's point. Its the 'tail wagging the dog'. Government makes policy, in order to not seem like a tyranny government creates data to justify policy. Let's see, War in Iraq, Spanish American war. I could go on forever this isn't new and we shouldn't' pretend it is. The problem is most people don't understand statistical data. Its not just a matter of greater than or less than, there are so many mitigating factors. But thats what we get, guess what we are also behind Europe on mmm education maybe . No wonder American's buy everything they here or see as fact. There is a reason advertising is a billion dollar industry, we're jsut a bunch of little fat fish waiting for the magic hook to re-appear

Yeah (4, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389127)

Take a look at US and UK BMW websites. The UK entry level model gets 40MPG, which is not much worse than our Prius. Living proof that we can double our car fuel efficiency NOW if we just stop being apathetic about it. And this is nothing compared to the impact of living in apartments and having a working Metro.

Re:Yeah (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389459)

don't forget the UK gallon is larger than the US gallon - by 25%, no less. (Goes as 1 pint US = 16 oz, 1piny UK = 20 oz). That makes all mpg values way better in UK....

Re:Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389475)

You forget also that the US has some of the strictest safety requirements of any county. Take the VW Golf and Ford Focus in the same model years. Both made on the same chasis. The US models weigh about 400 lbs more. And that is a small car. The problem is, the US wants it all. They want a big car, with all the bells and whistles, and as much safety features crammed in all the while meeting some pretty outrageous EPA emissions regulations.

And yes, the EPA regulations are part of the problem. Does anyone wonder why Mercedes has the only diesel car available in the US this year? Ford, VW, Opel/Vauxhaul (GM) all make diesel cars sold elsewhere.

Wonder why the Mercedes Smart, VW Lupo, VW Polo, Ford Ka and other types are cars aren't sold here? It's not because there is no market. It's because they would never pass our idiotic safety regulations.

So tell me, which lobby wins?
The oil lobby
the MADD lobby for safety
the auto makers lobby
The evironmental lobby
the public transit lobby
Auto workers union

They are all fighting to have legislation that works against one another

Repeat after me... "an analysis was revealed that (1)

bombastinator (812664) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389135)

I'm not saying the writer is wrong, but making accusatory claims and then revealing evidence makes one sound very biased. Pre-verifying the claims rather than merely pointing out where they are lowers ones perceived reasonableness as well as the perceived likely value of the evidence. A statement as to where the evidence came from might be more useful.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics (3, Insightful)

DebateG (1001165) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389143)

Statistics these days are becoming increasingly worthless, often just used to justify a political agenda on both sides. It's like the old adage says: statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is interesting, but what they hide is crucial.

Ummm, err...what? Your slant analysis is slanted (1, Insightful)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389149)

Cherry Picking the Time Period
In addition to selectively choosing the indicator to evaluate, Horner and the White House both
selectively chose a time period to make U.S. policy look good. Horner, who ironically has been a
staunch and regular opponent of U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, chooses 1997 ("Pick
any year since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in 1997"), and 2000 ("In truth, Europe's CO2
emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the U.S. since Kyoto, three times as fast since
2000"). The White House settled on 2000 as their base period.
First of all, Horner gets his math wrong, even when selectively choosing 1997 as a base year.
From 1997 to 2004 (the last year for which official data are available for both regions), European
carbon dioxide emissions rose just under 8%; US emissions rose just under 7%. Thus, Horner's
claim that "Europe's CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the U.S. since Kyoto" is
false. Indeed, in absolute terms, US carbon dioxide emissions rose by a larger amount over this
period than Europe's.
Second, when the proper date is chosen as the base year, Europe does better than the United
States.10 The proper base year for comparison is 1990.

First, the Bush wasn't in the White House in 1990. This may come as a surprise to the person who wrote the article, but Bush became president in 2001. He can pretty much distance himself to stuff prior to being in office all he wants, without it being "cherry picking."

Second, the very point the administration tries to make on this particular facet is that the agreement was in 1997, not 1990, thus 1997 is what should be used. 1990 favors other countries, because industries do this cyclical thing; starting at the date the agreement was reached seems the most logical regardless, to pick any date other than then is what is "cherry picking."

Finally: "European carbon dioxide emissions rose just under 8%; US emissions rose just under 7%." So when it's all said and done, and you provide your own slant to it, you still admit it rose less in the US than it did in Europe? Yeahkthnxbuhbye, enjoy the moments in fame, 20 years from now people will laugh about arguments like yours.

Re:Ummm, err...what? Your slant analysis is slante (1)

teslar (706653) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389407)

Second, the very point the administration tries to make on this particular facet is that the agreement was in 1997, not 1990, thus 1997 is what should be used. 1990 favors other countries, because industries do this cyclical thing; starting at the date the agreement was reached seems the most logical regardless, to pick any date other than then is what is "cherry picking."
I find it interesting that given how much you cited from TFA just to go on about a rant why 1990 should not be used, you chose not to quote to us the sentence immediately following the text you quoted:

Article 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change specifies that all greenhouse gas emissions analyses are to use 1990 as the base year
So I don't care who tries to make what point by choosing 1997 or whatever, it seems we have a convention on which year to use - sticking to that is acceptable and even expected, changing it because it makes you look bad to something that makes you look good is cherry-picking and that's the end of that.

There is ZERO credability in the Whitehouse. (1)

TheSlashaway (1032228) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389175)

They lie so frequently, it should not surprise anyone.

Get rid of your government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389275)

It's remarkable - everyone in the US seems to have made peace with the fact that they're consistently being lied to by the very people they employ.

It's not even as if the lies are insignificant. Why don't you people do something about your government?

mod this and most recent politics stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389199)

-1 iHate bush/republicans/america/non-environmentalists/

Re:mod this and most recent politics stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389367)

Just another typical kdawson story. It's like Jon Katz all over again but with more of an agenda.

The Trial Was a Pig Circus, He Never Had a Chance (4, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389211)

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.

Re:The Trial Was a Pig Circus, He Never Had a Chan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389353)

a) 10% unemployment in France? lol

b) it would be nice to see a link to prove that, I would have thought water vapor was caused by global warming not the other way around.

c) 1700? the middle of an ice age? wtf? did you go to grade 5? That's when we learned about an ice age, read a bit on it and you'll find out that we would still be in it. I agree about the nukes being a good idea but don't you think you contradict yourself when you say there will be no more global warming because you also say that it's mostly caused by water vapor.

I'm not left or right because being on one side causes one to have to accept ideas without proof. Man your post sucks.

Re:The Trial Was a Pig Circus, He Never Had a Chan (2, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389547)

Water vapor warms the atmosphere. Of that, there is no doubt. The problem is that as CO2 rises, it ever so slightly nudges up the temperature, which in turn kicks off more evaporation, and that, my friend screws up the climate even more. So yes, we are both right. But, if we were emitting water vapor ourselves, we would be skipping the CO2 step. I wonder if a study has ever been done on water vapor emissions?

The 18th century was the tale end of the Little Ige Age. I picked 1700 because it was unarguably pre-industrial, but even during the American revolution, the climate was much colder than it is today. There was a year without a summer, for one, and, one of the most famous moments of the American Revolution, George Washington crosses a Delaware river packed with giant chunks of ice, as it was freezing over. The Delaware NEVER freezes over any more. I have read that if not for global warming, we would actually be entering an ice age now, if you believed the Milankovich cycle and all of that stuff.

Unemployment in France indeed hovers above 10%, which is why the French did the unthinkable and elected Sarkozy.

The plug about Left vs Right is that the Left likes to paint itself as the Angels of the Environment, and, in retrospect, they have made two disasterous mistakes. Banning DDT contributed to millions of deaths from malaria, and, killing nuclear power aggravated global warming. This doesn't mean the right wing is perfect. If you take the Mauna Loa CO2 ppm measurements, you can roughly calculate the increase, in tons, in CO2 added to the atmosphere each year. Basically, you take the ppm, get the % of weight in the atmosphere, then, knowing the atmospheric pressure you can figure out that somewhere each year 4 - 8 gigatons of CO2 go into the air, and, of all surprises, that's about how much carbon is in the fuel that we burn. So, it's pretty reasonable to assume that the CO2 is coming from us. My point is, though, that, the origin of CO2 is ultimately irrelevant. We know that the CO2 is going up. And just as we know we need to build a levee when the water goes up, we know we need to manage the CO2 in the air, and part of that equation has to be sequestration, just in case something screwy is going on with the earth that we don't know about, or, just as likely, something screwy goes on with the earth, like, a big burst of methane hydrates erupts out of the ocean or yellowstone erupts. We just need to have a way to manage the atmosphere.

Bush is not the problem.... the media is (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389259)

all governments all over the world do stuff like this. I thought that the great thing about the usa was the fact that things like this could be exposed by the likes of the media (as well as open discussion). While many cheer this administration because of the propaganda, and many hate it for the same reason, the real problem has to account for nothing.

Futurama reference (3, Funny)

plams (744927) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389265)

Calm down! Relax! It's all part of a carefully orchestrated plan; when we eventually begin to get severely affected by global warming, the US war mongering will reach a point where nuclear winter will cancel it out.

Looking at the Data... (4, Insightful)

OakLEE (91103) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389283)

The summary's claim is that the White House is selectively using data points, and to an extent that is true. They base their claims on an index comparison that starts at the year 2000. When you view the data this way, it does appear that the EU's Greenhouse Gas emissions have gone up, while the US's have declined/been neutral. The article prefers on the other hand to index at 1990, which shows that over the last 14 years of data that the US's emissions have increased dramatically compared to the EU.

Now here's my first problem: the accusation assumes that 2000 is not a good index year, which it is. If the Bush Administration wants to make the case that they (The Bush Administration) have been more successful than the EU in reducing emissions, then the logical start point for comparison is about when they took over which would be 2001.

Now, the article points out correctly that Greenhouse emissions tend to drop during economic slowdowns. One can see that easily by looking at the graph at the end of it (the US has a drop in 1991; the EU has a drop from 92-96; the US has another drop from 00-01). If one takes these economic slowdowns into account, then 2000, the peak of the last economy, might very well be a good starting point for the Administration to start their indexing from. Why should they have to take into account the failures of past administrations (Bush I, and Clinton) when touting the success of their administration? If, hypothetically, US emissions had decreased from 1990 to 2000 and increased from 2000 to 2004, would it be fair for the Bush Administration to take the earlier data into account and claim that they had reduced emissions? No, that would be taking credit for progress they did not make. The same principle applies reverse.

The article also brings about a perpetual flaw in any sort of greenhouse gas analysis. It completely ignores economic growth and the effect it has on increasing emissions (which it candidly points out by the way). During much of the mid-90s the US economy was booming, especially compared to the EU, so of course there was going to be an increase in emissions from 1991-2000. Additionally, these indexes fail to take into account the size of the economic growth when making the comparison. If we really want a useful measure, we should be tracking "Volume of Emissions per Unit of GDP Growth." That way we could judge economies based on their environmental efficiency rather just on pure volumetric data.

Re:Looking at the Data... (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389571)

You are right. But the truth is that it is best to look at a question like this many ways.

Probably we should look at emissions per dollar of GDP as well. There was sustained economic growth in the 1990s, but 2001 had almost zero economic growth (0.3%), followed by a lackluster 2.45% in 2002. Since emissions tend to follow GDP growth, this gives the Bush administration a leg up.

Emissions/GDP seems like it woudl really be an important metric. Anybody can cut emissions by having a recession. The question is are we becoming more efficient?

Like my grandpappy used ta tell me... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389361)

...there's Lies, Damned Lies and Scientific Facts!

(At least I think it was something like that... I really think I shoulda wrote that down.)

How is this story even news? (0, Flamebait)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389461)

Did you actually expect anybody in the Bush Administration to be capable of analyzing scientific data properly?!?!

Conservatives Accepting "Climate Change" ?? (3, Insightful)

writerjosh (862522) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389479)

This most shocking thing in this article is not that the White House cherry-picks data, but that the White House (and the Conservatives in general) have finally got on board with the whole "climate change" thing. Go back 5 years and you would be called crazy if you said greenhouse gasses are aiding global warming (notice the alternate term: "climate change" instead of "global warming" - Conservatives wouldn't dare agree with Liberals and call it "global warming").

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're finally getting what Liberals have been shouting for decades. It's just shocking that they're only agreeing with the science now.

Now all we have to do is wait 30 more years for Conservatives to accept evolution. :)

Re:Conservatives Accepting "Climate Change" ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19389531)

The crazy part is some conservatives been more agreeable to anthropenic global warming just as people are actually waking up to seeing it as the weak minded, polictically motivated, psychotic hysteria that it is.

And we're shocked... WHY? (1)

buss_error (142273) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389517)

This is false
.

As are most of the "facts" reported by this administraton. Cherrypicking "facts" isn't anything new. Clinton did it to a small extent, Carter did it infrequently, Bush 41 did it to a moderate extent, Reagan did it so much that he manufactured "fact" from whole cloth (but not as much as Dubbya), And Ford did to a small extent.

What I find troublesome is that Dubbya's troopies (I call 'em "The Disney Land on the Potomic bunch") actually beleive their own lies.

There's nothing more dangerious than a fanatic that beleives his own PR.

Dihydrogen Monoxide (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389521)

I use this as an example of when people aren't fully up on all of the details can cause people to skew their mindset one way or another. We all know that all the claims on the famous www.dhmo.org website are 100% accurate, but also that that 100% accuracy doesn't mean that it is the bugaboo that it is made out to be.

The problem is, you can frame just about anything in such a way as to extol the virtues or vices of just about anything, and get people to buy into their wholesomeness or unwholesomeness as needed.

All one needs to do is compare the rhetoric against GWB and in support of Al Gore, and compare each followers response to the Tale of Two Houses http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp [snopes.com]

So, where I am going with this? Easy. It is easy to frame something that makes one thing look worse than it really is, or better than it really is. It happens all the time. Can we do better? Probably. Are we doing all we can? Probably not.

But there is a reason for it. Not everyone can afford a top of the line Architect to design an highly efficient home, nor the "carbon offsets" and energy from renewable sources. One day it will be feasible and necessary, even for people like China and India.

Yawn. (-1, Flamebait)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389523)

slownewsday?
How is this even worth mentioning? Ok, we can do some nice Bush-bashing, but if we have to use these old themes it almost looks like there weren't any new ones.

Not only that, they turned off the satellites (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 6 years ago | (#19389551)

the ones that monitored global warming emissions worldwide run by the US were ordered to stop monitoring said emissions by direct order of the White House.

Why?

Because the truth is not on their side.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...