Republican administration suppressing science again

The issue of whether global warming is occurring is a scientific issue.The issue of what the likely effects are and how to deal with them goes far beyond a scientific issue and touches on industrial policy, diplomacy, economics, and other issues.To fully eliminate whatever human effects there are on global warming would require reverting to a preindustrial economy worldwide. I think this is a political non-starter, for reasons that should be obvious.Short of that, a possible startegy is to try to adapt to whatever effects global warming has in the short term, wehile moving toward technological solutions to the carbon emission problem in the long term (alternative energy technologies, carbon sequestartion, etc).It can be argued that deliberately crippling the economies of the most technologically advanced nations through draconian emissions cuts, while doing nothing about rapidly industrializing countries' emissions (China India, Brazil), is likely an ineffective approach.As to the argument that individuals associated with oil companies
are inherently tainted, I have little sympathy for this argument. It is really nothing more than a political ad hominem.The oil industry employs some of the finest scientific and engineering talent in geophysics and energy technology available anywhere. It should have a role in any response to global warming requiring innovation in energy technology.

I'm sorry but IMHO your post is but a classic example of the nonsense rhetoric that the Republicans seem to resort to on every subject.You say: Where has anything like that been proposed?Is there any reasonable justification for SUVs?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Although it effects more than the scientific realm, what are the facts we are dealing with (both estimates of change and possible solutions) are science based. I honestly do not believe this to be the case at all. Carbon emissions may be drastically reduced by use of alternative energy sources (esp nuclear which has gotten too bad a wrap, wind, tide, and solar), as well as passive energy saving technologies. That is totally industrial age tech.There is also the ending of stripping forests so that we can have carbon "sinks". That is neither pre or post industrial in nature.I'm not sure why you moved from that to say "short of that" and then list the logical options. I don't know anyone seriously posing such a "doomsday" scenario regarding lifestyle and economy. You did not see me say that at all. My earth science (geology/geochem) background was suited toward such work and I did not consider working for them to be a compromise of principles or scientific credibility.I might mention that my own advisor was a nonindustry affiliated scientist who though accepting that climate change was occuring, did not feel we could discuss "blame" nor predict its complete effects as many have using scare tactics to generate policy. Thus I am aware that there are scientists outside industry who question specific conclusions and suggestions regarding global climate change.HOWEVER, your argument has just about nothing to do with what is being discussed here. This was not just a paper put out by oil company scientists, nor a science paper reviewed by oil industry scientists. This was a scientific paper that should have passed through to be used by policy makers. Instead it was altered by a nonscientist working for industry in order to suggest specific outcomes desired by that industry.I am at a loss how you can defend this at all. It is tampering with data and making it misleading for our policymakers. This is what we just went through with Iraq intelligence issues, and scientific intel is no different. We must not allow data and analysis to be "groomed" by policy biased individuals. Yes as long as that role is not interfering with the messages of other scientists by having nonscientists "groom" reports and analyses to fit their own industry interests.Again, I am a bit disturbed to see you try and defend this particular case. It is pretty clearly not appropriate behavior.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd be more willing to entertain it if you'd engage the issues, rather than resorting to dismissive invective. Yes. Consumers have a requirement for the passenger and cargo capacity they offer, and can afford to fuel them.Propose a BTU tax if you'd like to make operating an SUV unaffordable, but don't forget about the second-order economic effects of such a tax.

No, I don't suppose anyone except the extremist fringe of the environmental movement is proposing this.The point, however, is thata) the negative second order economic effects of a Kyoto like emissions reduction scheme probably outweigh any positive effects
of the emissions cuts - the warming is still going to go on until technological fixes are in place, without truly draconian cutsb) the Kyoto scheme itself is unworkable in that rapidly industrializing and energy intensive economies are exempt, and there are far too may loopholes.Yes as long as that role is not interfering with the messages of other scientists by having nonscientists "groom" reports and analyses to fit their own industry interests. My discussion is more general and not focused on this specific case. I am adressing the allegation of the OP that the Republican administration "is suppressing science" in a general sense. If these tactics are being used, that's indeed a problem.This allegation seems to be motivated by a general dislike for the administration's position on climate change, and it is this I am defending in a general sense.

I'm sorry but that is simply nonsense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I thought that this was yet another (the latest) example of the Bush administration tampering with science, and not supposed to be the sole example.This specific case should be addressed by all that are interested in good science and policy making, even if one is against Kyoto (frankly I'm not all that on board with it either). It is flagrant abuse and what we just went through with Iraq intel.The administration is learning a lesson or it is not. The more Reps do not hold this administration accountable the less likely it is to learn a lesson.The other cases have been discussed from time to time, and I thought they were pretty well known. I'd expand the discussion from "science" to all sorts of factual analyses. This administration has a track record of quashing evidence and analyses it does not like, in order to back its policy. In a way it is taking the ID version of what good science is, and running with it... theories are used to shape evidence instead of the other way around.If you are unaware that this is not the first such episode, then I suggest you start investigating other incidents. It is very troubling.By the way, I am in no way suggesting that Bush and Co are the only ones mishandling science or intel. I was working in the gov't during Clinton's time in office and also saw "liberals" pushing agendas and willing to reject science and groom analyses to come to the conclusion/policy they wanted.The problem is that Bush and Co appear to be institutionalizing that practice.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually, a mature forest makes a very poor carbon sink. Most of the CO2 that is going ot soaked up by the forest has already been done by this point. On the other hand, if we clear cut the forest and use the wood for something long lasting (furniture, houses, and the like) and don't just burn it up, and let a new forest grow....succession from a field to a forest will soak up significantly more CO2 that than an already established forest.Don't get me wrong, I do not want to clear cut forests, and I think global warming is a reality. Big time pro-environment, I just wanted us to be accurate...unlike the Bushie who fudged the report.

---

Why do men have nipples?

I was actually just referring to the complete removal of forest areas for other purposes (nonnatural growth like housing or grazing), but must admit I was under the mistaken belief that mature forests would still act as carbon sinks.Thanks for the correction.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It is a problem.
While I am opposed to the administration's position on climate change (which I would probably liken to trying to hide the country's head in the sand, regardless of one's opinion of Kyoto), my concern, and the reason for the OP, was rather the broader problem of the administration's disrespect for science and scientists and their apparrent efforts to either suppress or modify science that conflicts with their policy, or selectively accept what does. See messages 9 and 11 . Refusing to accept the reality of climate change is only one example of the problem, and possibly the tip of an iceberg.I am interested to hear if others have come accross additional examples of this apparrent trend.