If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Congressional survey of government researchers finds 435 separate incidents of political pressure from the Bush Administration to downplay global warming over the last five years   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 211
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

889 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jan 2007 at 12:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-01-30 12:36:27 PM  
ec3.images-amazon.com
 
2007-01-30 12:37:58 PM  
One for every congressman?
 
2007-01-30 12:38:17 PM  
Stupid scientists, what do they know.

MANBEARPIG IM SUPER SERIAL LOL!!1!
 
2007-01-30 12:38:55 PM  
images.ucomics.com
 
2007-01-30 12:40:28 PM  
img82.imageshack.us
 
2007-01-30 12:43:24 PM  
...mutter...better headline...mutter...

Where are our resident deniers?

"It's hubris to think man can effect God's creation!"

"It's just teh natural cycles!"

"Fixing it will makes us broke, plus OMGWTF CHINA!!1!"
 
2007-01-30 12:45:38 PM  
Come on guys who are you going to trust, the Bush admin who has been right about everything so far, or stupid scientists who have an agenda to make things difficult for everyone because they are evil?

Really?
 
2007-01-30 12:45:55 PM  
FTA sent out the survey to 1,600 scientists. Surveys were returned by 308 scientists

I fail at the statistics, but is this a low return rate or spot on. I have a hard time thinking this is a high return.
 
2007-01-30 12:46:29 PM  
The biggest lie is that the measures we could immediately take are Anti-Industry,

The biggest source of CO2 which is the most prolific greenhouse gas is Transport and Electrical generation.
www.seed.slb.com

So, reduce electrical demand and increase mpg should be the first steps.

I do 50% of my work in Energy Conservation. ( We've been advised to drop the C word and go with efficiency. Conservation doesnt go down well in the USA, sounds liberal )
I go to industrial sites and advise on how to reduce energy costs. I'm in INDIA right now, ( or will be tommorrow. )

It's very easy.
All motors everywhere are over sized, particularly old production lines, from when energy was really cheap, also the bigger the motor the bigger the shaft, so motor where bought based on shaft size rather than energy needed.

( no one is sacked for putting 100% to much power, put if you haven't got enough.....big problem. )

We fit inverters to match the load exactly. typical savings of 50% of your elect bill.
The cost of inverters in high, so the payback is about 2/3 years.

example of payback
cost of inverter for motor = $500.
energy saved per year = $250
payback = 2 yrs.

The same with heat, we exhaust heat thro' stacks, but it is possible to reclaim that heat, and put it back into the process saving gas bills. again 3/4 year payback.

There is a very high cost at the start, but the payback is there, its not wasted, the oil and gas bills slump, that money says in your pocket. The reduced consumption means the biggest source of CO2, power generation is cut.

Its happened before under Carter (i'm told that was a boom time for energy conservation implimentation ) and electronics have moved on hugely since then. It can happen again.
Its happening in Europe right now, 90% of the work is in Europe. They have a CCL (Climate Change Levy), and if industries done reach target savings they are fined. Industries have do better than their target can sell there "over save" to those that do not to prevent them from getting fined.

It is not Anti-Industrial, Anti-capitalist, It is anti waste. By increasing effciency we reduce pollution, and lower costs, even without Global warming, its worth doing.
 
2007-01-30 12:47:23 PM  
Corvus

The "scientists" have to promote global warming myths in order to get grant money. President Bush gets nothing in return for backing the oil industry's position.
 
2007-01-30 12:48:55 PM  
In a way you have to admire Bush's strategy for handling Global Warming. He's gone from pretending it doesn't exist to pretending he's going to do something about it.
 
2007-01-30 12:50:26 PM  
Saiga410

I fail at the statistics, but is this a low return rate or spot on. I have a hard time thinking this is a high return.

Shouldn't any returned surveys that point to political pressure to whitewash science be enough to be condemned?
 
2007-01-30 12:51:45 PM  
I fail at the statistics, but is this a low return rate or spot on. I have a hard time thinking this is a high return.

I actually think this is prety much par for the course - I'm noramlly amazed by what pollsters consider to be a reasonable rate of returns.
 
2007-01-30 12:52:36 PM  
President Bush gets nothing in return for backing the oil industry's position.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

hang on....

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
 
2007-01-30 12:53:15 PM  
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group, and the Government Accountability Project, a legal-assistance group that represents whistle-blowers, sent out the survey to 1,600 scientists

A Congressman reading a survey conducted by an agenda-driven advocacy group does not a 'Congressional Survey' make, regardless of whether or not you agree with the results.
 
2007-01-30 12:54:51 PM  
Culann: A Congressman reading a survey conducted by an agenda-driven advocacy group does not a 'Congressional Survey' make, regardless of whether or not you agree with the results.

Someone's going to pass that idea along to the president though, right? ;)
 
2007-01-30 12:56:05 PM  
Jon Snow: President Bush gets nothing in return for backing the oil industry's position.

Bahah ahhaha ahahahha ahahaa haha ahha ahahhahaha ahahhaahhaha

What color is the sky in your world?
 
2007-01-30 12:56:30 PM  
My first reaction is that the return rate is low. This might be affected by either people are afraid to speak out or the only people likely to respond would be the ones pissed off.

Either way the numbers might be high/low. Like I said I fail at the statistics and I just want to know how much salt to take with this study.
 
2007-01-30 12:59:27 PM  
Jon Snow: The "scientists" have to promote global warming myths in order to get grant money. President Bush gets nothing in return for backing the oil industry's position.

So how about this:
Industry signals Bush to do more on warming
10 companies join activist groups in calling for caps on carbon emissions


In a statement, the 10 U.S.-based companies and four environmental groups called for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, including those from power plants, transportation and buildings.

Called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the group includes aluminum giant Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, DuPont, General Electric, Lehman Brothers and four utilities with a big stake in climate policy: Duke Energy, FPL Group, PG&E and PNM Resources.


Keep putting your fingers in you ears and going LA LA LA!
 
2007-01-30 01:00:49 PM  
I do 50% of my work in Energy Conservation. ( We've been advised to drop the C word and go with efficiency. Conservation doesnt go down well in the USA, sounds liberal )
Lord Baron that was the most obtuse use of the I work for ___ so these response are really cracking me up cliche that I have seen. Good Work!
 
2007-01-30 01:05:04 PM  
Corvus, pjc51- check my profile, look at my initial post. I was being sarcastic.
 
2007-01-30 01:06:25 PM  
Jon Snow - Sorry - I should have been more alert there :-)
 
2007-01-30 01:07:15 PM  
Jon Snow: Corvus, pjc51- check my profile, look at my initial post. I was being sarcastic.


Sorry in this day in age it is hard to tell the difference between satire and REAL Republican opinion.

/usually the satire is less extreme.
 
2007-01-30 01:07:56 PM  
pjc51: Sorry - I should have been more alert there :-)

Not to mention more coherent.
 
2007-01-30 01:10:33 PM  
But this article is on MSNBC!!one!!11uno
 
2007-01-30 01:11:44 PM  
Lard_BaronI do 50% of my work in Energy Conservation. ( We've been advised to drop the C word and go with efficiency. Conservation doesnt go down well in the USA, sounds liberal )

From my understanding thats how this country (20 or so odd years ago) started moving from heat sucking high impedance small dry type transformers to todays typical low impedance ones when energy was still cheap.
 
2007-01-30 01:12:19 PM  
They now have 40% efficient solar electricity cells and tens of thousands of vacant lots in every city in the United States. Let's put some solar arrays on trailers and park those trailers on un-used real estate and nickle and dime this power supply problem a little.
 
2007-01-30 01:14:49 PM  
Jon Snow: Corvus, pjc51- check my profile, look at my initial post. I was being sarcastic.

I was gonna say...either you were being sarcastic, or you had suffered some kind of sudden brain injury ;)
 
2007-01-30 01:15:08 PM  
I, for one, would like the 51% of Americans that voted this for this asshat to put our interests first.

Then, I'd like to personally cockpunch each one of those 51% that keep parroting the lie global warming is a myth.
 
2007-01-30 01:22:57 PM  
Coelacanth: Let's put some solar arrays on trailers and park those trailers on un-used real estate and nickle and dime this power supply problem a little.

Build cars with one on the roof. Recharge while running, when parked and charged outside they can supply the building they are parked at.
solarelectricalsystems.com
 
2007-01-30 01:24:00 PM  
Saiga410: I just want to know how much salt to take with this study.

What does that even mean? You want to know how extensively the administration tried to whitewash the science? Why isn't the fact that they did it all enough for you?

They've been caught before.

Remember that Chief of Staff for President Bush's environmental policy council (who previously worked as a big oil lobbyist and had no background in science) who was immediately hired by Exxon Mobil.
 
2007-01-30 01:24:39 PM  
Hey Subby

FTFA: "The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years."

How does that equal

"Congressional survey of government researchers finds 435 separate incidents of political pressure from the Bush Administration to downplay global warming over the last five years"

Trolls.
 
2007-01-30 01:26:24 PM  
Coelacanth
They now have 40% efficient solar electricity cells and tens of thousands of vacant lots in every city in the United States. Let's put some solar arrays on trailers and park those trailers on un-used real estate and nickle and dime this power supply problem a little.

One thing you might want to check on that is the actual cost per watt/hour on those cells. Because if I remember correctly they are currently more expensive than burning fossil fuels... so in the end you are spending more money than with fossil fuels. A little more development and they could be viable.
 
2007-01-30 01:29:52 PM  
Code_Archeologist


One thing you might want to check on that is the actual cost per watt/hour on those cells. Because if I remember correctly they are currently more expensive than burning fossil fuels... so in the end you are spending more money than with fossil fuels. A little more development and they could be viable.


They have a few in Vegas at the power plants. I'm not sure about the cost, but they could surely fit many many more here.
 
2007-01-30 01:30:25 PM  
The same polluting carbon particulates responsible for global warming are also responsible for increased incidence of cancer, asthma, emphysema, and infections of the lungs and respiratory tract. It does this the same way cigarette smoking does - by damaging the lungs. The United States took the lead out of gasoline in the 70's because it was causing brain damage in children. It's time to clean up our act again.
 
2007-01-30 01:30:37 PM  
Lord_Baull: Then, I'd like to personally cockpunch each one of those 51% that keep parroting the lie global warming is a myth.

I guess now would be the wrong time to ask for a cracker...
 
2007-01-30 01:33:01 PM  
What about the 435 separate incidents of political pressure from special interest groups to upgrade global warming over the last 5 years?
 
2007-01-30 01:38:07 PM  
The adminsitration will go down as the one who fiddle while rome burned.

dumbasses.
 
2007-01-30 01:42:24 PM  
Code_Archeologist

Yeah expensive for now.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell7.htm

Solar-power Pros and Cons

Some people have a flawed concept of solar energy. While it's true that sunlight is free, the electricity generated by PV systems is not. As you can see from our discussion of a household PV system, quite a bit of hardware is needed. Currently, an installed PV system will cost somewhere around $9 per peak Watt. To give you an idea of how much a house system would cost, let's consider the Solar House -- a model residential home in Raleigh, North Carolina, with a PV system set up by the North Carolina Solar Center to demonstrate the technology. It's a fairly small home, and it is estimated that its 3.6-kW PV system covers about half of the total electricity needs (this system doesn't use batteries -- it's connected to the grid). Even so, at $9 per Watt, this installed system would cost you around $32,000.
That's why PV is usually used in remote areas, far from a conventional source of electricity. Right now, it simply can't compete with the utilities. Costs are coming down as research is being done, however. Researchers are confident that PV will one day be cost effective in urban areas as well as remote ones. Part of the problem is that manufacturing needs to be done on a large scale to reduce costs as much as possible. That kind of demand for PV, however, won't exist until prices fall to competitive levels. It's a Catch-22 situation. Even so, demand and module efficiencies are constantly rising, prices are falling, and the world is becoming increasingly aware of environmental concerns associated with conventional power sources, making photovoltaics a technology with a bright future.
 
2007-01-30 01:43:00 PM  
betweenthenines

What about the 435 separate incidents of political pressure from special interest groups to upgrade global warming over the last 5 years?


LOL so true.
 
2007-01-30 01:44:24 PM  
Union of Concerned Scientists

'nuf said
 
2007-01-30 01:45:37 PM  
Cracker_monkey_in_a_cage: The adminsitration will go down as the one who fiddle while rome burned.

Screw Rome...I'm more worried about Rhode Island. ;)
 
2007-01-30 01:48:21 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: Union of Concerned Scientists

'nuf said


ad hominem

'nuff said
 
2007-01-30 01:50:56 PM  
"I'm more worried about Rhode Island. ;)"

I am unfamiliar with this Road Island of which you speak of. Is it a town or village located in another country or far off land?
 
2007-01-30 01:52:27 PM  
President Bush gets nothing in return for backing the oil industry's position.

I hired a sky-writer to spell out "LOL" in hundred foot letters over my house but it's still not big enough.
 
2007-01-30 01:53:58 PM  
FlashLV: Hey Subby

FTFA: "The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years."

How does that equal

"Congressional survey of government researchers finds 435 separate incidents of political pressure from the Bush Administration to downplay global warming over the last five years"


Bush has been in the White House since 2001 and, except for the brief period after Jeffords defected, Republicans have controlled Congress. Ipso facto, political interference has been by the Bush administration.

Trolls.

img.fark.com
 
2007-01-30 01:55:22 PM  
Cracker_monkey_in_a_cage: I am unfamiliar with this Road Island of which you speak of. Is it a town or village located in another country or far off land?

I think it's where the Colossus was...
 
2007-01-30 01:55:49 PM  
El_Perro [TotalFark]
ad hominem
'nuff said


perhaps but since I don't have the actual report I am skeptical
 
2007-01-30 01:57:01 PM  
Cracker_monkey_in_a_cage: I am unfamiliar with this Road Island of which you speak of. Is it a town or village located in another country or far off land?

:sigh:

I guess that beats the usual "That's off in the ocean, over near New York, right?"
 
2007-01-30 01:59:11 PM  
I once told a group of College rRepublicans to shut up and go home when there protest made it hard to here the cycle tones on the GC... can I be part of the survey?
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report