Comments on: The sad state of Bush’s science advice http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:47:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: JQW http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7219 JQW Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:17:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7219 The Republican attack on science is of course older than Junior's administration. Another terrible example besides Marburger is the Office of Technology Assessment, which the 104th Congress (e.g. Gingrich) shut down. There are other examples from the Reagan and Bush Sr years. As Upton Sinclair pointed out, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it," and the investors in the Republican party do often seem to make their Senator and Congress clients' jobs depend on it. The Republican attack on science is of course older than Junior’s administration. Another terrible example besides Marburger is the Office of Technology Assessment, which the 104th Congress (e.g. Gingrich) shut down. There are other examples from the Reagan and Bush Sr years. As Upton Sinclair pointed out, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it,” and the investors in the Republican party do often seem to make their Senator and Congress clients’ jobs depend on it.

]]> By: Dano http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7201 Dano Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:25:15 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7201 <i>any coment on this? Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming? By David Evans Posted on 12/11/2007 http://www.mises.org/story/2795 who is david evans? </i> Presuming you are an innocent and not a FUD purveyor or spam bot, use Google. Best, D any coment on this?

Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming?
By David Evans
Posted on 12/11/2007

http://www.mises.org/story/2795

who is david evans?

Presuming you are an innocent and not a FUD purveyor or spam bot, use Google.

Best,

D

]]> By: hippie with a pistol http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7200 hippie with a pistol Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:22:32 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7200 Since Pierrehumbert appoves of France's record on emissions through the use of nuclear energy I'd say it looks like we already have the technology. Since Pierrehumbert appoves of France’s record on emissions through the use of nuclear energy I’d say it looks like we already have the technology.

]]> By: Anonymous http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7198 Anonymous Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:51:08 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7198 BTW, I'm not Joe. But this is just too easy. Why yes, we can reduce emissions <i>by building smaller houses</i>. What would these smaller houses look like? Just like the houses our grandparents built when they squeezed their dollars harder than we do. We can reduce emissions by driving less. When suburbia began almost nobody had two cars, dads carpooled to work, and moms drove everybody's children to the beach or Cub Scout meeting. Not to mention walking a half mile to the bus stop or a mile to school, not considered at all unusual just 50 years ago. We can reduce emissions by eating locally. Apples from Chile or New Zealand may be good for somebody's economy, but not for mine. It's just stupid to fly an apple halfway around the globe. There are three examples of existing technology that could reduce emissions. I'm sure the rest of you can think of some more. BTW, I’m not Joe. But this is just too easy.

Why yes, we can reduce emissions by building smaller houses. What would these smaller houses look like? Just like the houses our grandparents built when they squeezed their dollars harder than we do.

We can reduce emissions by driving less. When suburbia began almost nobody had two cars, dads carpooled to work, and moms drove everybody’s children to the beach or Cub Scout meeting. Not to mention walking a half mile to the bus stop or a mile to school, not considered at all unusual just 50 years ago.

We can reduce emissions by eating locally. Apples from Chile or New Zealand may be good for somebody’s economy, but not for mine. It’s just stupid to fly an apple halfway around the globe.

There are three examples of existing technology that could reduce emissions. I’m sure the rest of you can think of some more.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7197 Joe Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:44:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7197 Plug in is not either a long-term technology or one requiring a breakthrough. Andy Frank at UC Davis has been building them for over a decade! Many companies will introduce them around 2010. We may need incremental improvement in Li-Ion batteries for commercial success. However, we may not. Plug in is not either a long-term technology or one requiring a breakthrough. Andy Frank at UC Davis has been building them for over a decade! Many companies will introduce them around 2010. We may need incremental improvement in Li-Ion batteries for commercial success. However, we may not.

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7195 Paul K Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:37:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7195 What is the plug in electric car but a long-term technological breakthrough? Can you name three examples of existing technologies not now in use or underused and your plan to implement them? What is the plug in electric car but a long-term technological breakthrough? Can you name three examples of existing technologies not now in use or underused and your plan to implement them?

]]> By: anony http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7193 anony Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:11:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7193 any coment on this? Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming? By David Evans Posted on 12/11/2007 http://www.mises.org/story/2795 who is david evans? any coment on this?

Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming?
By David Evans
Posted on 12/11/2007

http://www.mises.org/story/2795

who is david evans?

]]> By: Ronald http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7192 Ronald Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:54:43 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7192 I think what Al Gore meant by that statement was a discussion of the politics in the world on Global Warming. In the political context he explained it made sense. This making the science advisor a political arm of this administration doesn’t surprise me. They tried and got caught to do the same thing to the criminal justice system with the selective firing of U. S. Attorneys. It’s politics that runs this administrations science. It may have been a politically run Defense Department and Iraqi postwar program that made the Iraq war so costly. Instead of letting competence run it, they selected thru Rumsfeld to be overly political. Just like after the first Space Shuttle blew up in 1986, Dr Feynman, well known physicist said that you can’t fool nature with public relations. But in politics, we can be fooled with public relations or at least a majority can be. I realize I am stating the obvious, but it sure does get frustrating. I think what Al Gore meant by that statement was a discussion of the politics in the world on Global Warming. In the political context he explained it made sense.

This making the science advisor a political arm of this administration doesn’t surprise me. They tried and got caught to do the same thing to the criminal justice system with the selective firing of U. S. Attorneys.

It’s politics that runs this administrations science. It may have been a politically run Defense Department and Iraqi postwar program that made the Iraq war so costly. Instead of letting competence run it, they selected thru Rumsfeld to be overly political.

Just like after the first Space Shuttle blew up in 1986, Dr Feynman, well known physicist said that you can’t fool nature with public relations.

But in politics, we can be fooled with public relations or at least a majority can be. I realize I am stating the obvious, but it sure does get frustrating.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7190 Joe Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:37:38 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7190 You haven't been reading my posts on technology, then. All the hypothetical long term future technology in the world won't save the climate if we don't start cutting emissions significantly now using existing technology. I am not sure what Gore meant by that quote, since it was not in the context of anything. I'll ask his folks. You haven’t been reading my posts on technology, then. All the hypothetical long term future technology in the world won’t save the climate if we don’t start cutting emissions significantly now using existing technology.

I am not sure what Gore meant by that quote, since it was not in the context of anything. I’ll ask his folks.

]]> By: Ron http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7188 Ron Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:32:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/the-sad-state-of-bushs-science-advice/#comment-7188 I don't understand what you think is wrong with his statement - "It’s important not to get distracted by chasing short-term reductions in greenhouse emissions. The real payoff is in long-term technological breakthroughs." Isn't the long-term need new technology, whether you believe the warm-mongering hype, or the peak oil hype, or any other hype? Even Gore admits, in fancy terms, that what the alarmists want isn't currently feasible, technologically: "The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do." I don’t understand what you think is wrong with his statement – “It’s important not to get distracted by chasing short-term reductions in greenhouse emissions. The real payoff is in long-term technological breakthroughs.”

Isn’t the long-term need new technology, whether you believe the warm-mongering hype, or the peak oil hype, or any other hype?

Even Gore admits, in fancy terms, that what the alarmists want isn’t currently feasible, technologically: “The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do.”

]]>