Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Everything Political

The Battle Has Been Joined!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:39 am

In the beginning, there was no debate, and the darkness of ignorance was spread over the face of the public.

Then, Al Gore stirred and brought his immenseness to the forefront, and announced that "the time for debate is over" and "the science is settled."

And then, an unnamed soul said "let there be Climategate." And so there was Climategate. And there was much gnashing of teeth. But all who respect science saw that it was a good thing. Evening passed, and morning came to the AGW blogosphere.

Then, behold! Al Gore and other notary notables (James Cameron) did not wish to debate. Lo, we watched as they ran away from cameras asking tough questions, or failed to appear at debates they agreed to, after they had already cooked the terms of the debate to their satisfaction. Evening passed, and morning came, and the blogosphere grew strong and began to roar.

And Dr. Hal Lewis said: I am sick of the politics of the American Physical Society (APS) with respect to CAGW. I hereby resign, with malice and comment. And still there was no debate. The AGW alarmists refused to debate, and instead their chief Pharisee (John Holdren) concocted a new term to obfuscate truth: "Global Climate Disruption"

Evening passed, and morning came, and the APS decided they were going to publicly respond to the heresies of Dr. Hal Lewis. And lo did they think that such a tactic would allow them to remain free from the "evils" of debate?

And the god of the blogosphere told the bloggites: "Be fruitful and debate!" And lo that Dr. Hal Lewis was joined by Dr. Roger Cohen, and Dr. Will Happer in multiplying the debate.

The Debate That Was Never Supposed To Happen!

And because the blogosphere does not need rest... the debate which has been formed by the hands of the TRUE servants of veridical Science shall continue... whether the Pharisees like it or not.

Gentlemen...we have reached critical mass!
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby Access Denied » Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:31 am

Great post...=D>

Unfortunately it appears the mainstream media doesn't think this is news.

However, given California is the 8th (formerly 6th) largest economy in the world, with any luck this will be the next shoe to drop come November...

Image

California Jobs Initiative 2010
http://www.yeson23.com/

We all want to do our part on global warming, but with 2.3 million Californians already unemployed and the state facing a $20 billion budget deficit, protecting jobs and the economy should be our first priority.

Proposition 23 is a common sense approach to protecting jobs, preserving environmental protections, and holding the line on costs for California’s struggling families. Proposition 23 would simply suspend California’s global warming plan until the economy stabilizes, we get people back to work and we can afford these investments.

Voting Yes on Prop 23 will SAVE:
  • Over 1.1 million jobs
  • Up to 60 percent in higher electricity rates
  • $3.7 billion a year in higher gasoline and diesel prices
  • Up to 56% increase in natural gas rates
  • Local governments from hundreds of millions in additional budget cuts

That said, I strongly support increased R&D funding for alternative energy sources... nuclear in particular.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:02 am

It is good to see we agree on at least something, AD, and it is good that it is this one.

The abuse of science in the name of politics is completely unacceptable. And it must and will be stopped.

And I am way YES on 23, as well as way YES on Nuclear power.

And my electric bill, thanks to my solar PV system, currently stands at -$255.00 for the calendar year.

And I am now driving a 35 MPG Yaris.

So if anyone wants to claim I am anti-environment, try again... :D
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:43 am

Those of us who have kept an eye on this AGW topic, especially after the Climategate emails hit the scene just about 1 year ago, are also aware of the "exoneration of wrongdoing" (i.e. whitewash inquiries) of the major players involved in the Climagate email affair. But public opinion clearly shows fewer and fewer people buying into this scam, even if there are die-hard holdouts who still seem to think "the science is settled" even though the reality is there is more than adequate evidence to falsify the presumption of any sort of scientific "consensus"...even if science did work that way, which it does not.

But now, I am going to offer a very important article that I want folks to read. Because in this article, the MOTIVES behind why Phil Jones asked his AGW colleagues to delete emails are examined. When you read the actual words of Phil Jones, and the others involved in deciding how to respond to UK FOIA requests for their scientific data and communications on these science topics, it is virutally impossible NOT to come to the conclusion that these people were purposefully looking for ways to AVOID handing over the requested data, and that sets the MOTIVE for Phil Jones asking people to break the law (and delete information that he knew was subject to existing FOIA requests). Moreover, there is absolutely no way that anyone who understands science could call what these men are doing science (i.e. purposefully avoiding, rather than willfully offering, the dissemination of the data upon which they made alleged scientific conclusions about AGW).

If ANYONE here reading this thread actually believes they can come to a conclusion that these men were doing veridical science, and NOT engaged in unlawful collusion, after reading these emails...I would really like you to reply in this thread and explain your reasoning. I am being serious. Because I cannot, for the life of me, see how one could come to such a conclusion when the evidence is this straightforward.

And so without further adieu:

By The Book - by Steven Mosher

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby Tim Hebert » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:07 pm

Excellent link. Being that both of us are Californians (transplanted on my part), what's your take on our Air Quality Board policies concerning diesel particulants? My personal opinion is that these "defacto" rulings have the capability to substantially damage the state's economy with no particular noticable gain in air quality. On the national level Cap and Trade appears to be DOA yet California is hell bent on following through with policies that benefit no one and gives the appearance of "knee jerk" reactions.

Tim

ETA: Corrections, not Air Quality Board, but California Air Resources Board.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/diesel.htm ARB's stance on diesel fuels

ETA#2: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/18/gov-knew-carb-scandal-dec-19-2008/ This one of the numerous stories about the ARB's unscientific approach towards regulating "climate change" in the state.

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:34 am

Tim Hebert wrote:Being that both of us are Californians (transplanted on my part), what's your take on our Air Quality Board policies concerning diesel particulants? My personal opinion is that these "defacto" rulings have the capability to substantially damage the state's economy with no particular noticable gain in air quality. On the national level Cap and Trade appears to be DOA yet California is hell bent on following through with policies that benefit no one and gives the appearance of "knee jerk" reactions.


I was also transplated to CA from OH back in '81.

But I am right there with you, Tim. I was surprised that the CA electorate voted down Prop 23, which essentially gives the non-scientific (or even ascientific) bureaucrats free-reign to further destroy our economy and drive employers out of state. It is no secret that many aerospace companies have moved a lot of work out of state, and shall continue to do so. And on the issue of CARB's edicts, in comparison to the contemplated Federal Cap & Trade, it is telling to me that the emissions targets of the CARB are even more stringent and ambitious than what was considered (and rejected) in DC. The CARB is a typical, arrogant, nanny-state type of bureaucratic agency. They like to pretend they are invoking science, but they are nothing more than appointed (not elected) demagogues.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

AlGore Admits to Playing Politics

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:27 am

Coming from the mouth of the self-proclaimed guru of global warming, this could be damning... if the mainstream media actually did their job and held him accountable for ALL of the BS he spews:

Gore Admits Corn Ethanol Subsidies Was Not Good Policy

The Goreacle wrote:“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol,” said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.

“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

“It’s hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”


Now all he needs to do is use a little intelligent extrapolation to replace "ethanol" subsidies with the exact same types of subsidies they (Gore and his AGW puppet Obama) are proposing for solar/wind. Moreover, the results are already in for Spain's dalliance in these types of government-backed subsidies. They are a disaster, and unsustainable in the not-even-very-long term.

And this brings us to one of the more interesting aspects of the entire Environmentalist Movement, of which AGW is just its most spectacular manipulation of science for politics: They are calling for a more "sustainable" energy architecture for the world which, ignoring any given implementation, is a good thing. But what I find interesting is their need to invoke government mandate and government subsidy as their means to implement the vision... and quite clearly we have AMPLE evidence that such approaches are not sustainable, even in the short term.

The hypocrisy could not be more blatant. Yet, those who advocate for this type of hypocrisy will adamantly ignore it and deny it when you point it out to them. This is precisely where we would expect the media to do their job, and continue to hammer home the unsustainability and hypocrisy of such approaches. But the majority of the MSM simply cannot be bothered...with doing their jobs.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby Tim Hebert » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:59 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.


First "inconvient truth" from Gore in quiet awhile. What Gore and others failed to realized was that the conversion ratios required vast amounts of corn to equal their minute output. This has negatively impacted every industry that requires corn by-products and has driven up the cost of food in our grocery stores.

Two years ago I obtained a couple of quotes from local solar equipment installers in San Diego County. The average total cost for inversion equipment and what I needed for panels was approximately $75K. Subtract the Federal and State rebates, the cost was down to around $50K. Return on investment (RIO) was 13 years! I would have had to financed the remaining $50K. My mortgage is so f'king up-side down that the word "equity" is laughable. How do these solar companies make money? By cashing in on both the State and Feds rebates. That would have been a $25K profit. Isn't that government subsidies? Of course it is! So we're screwed either by increasing rates from the electric company or by obtaining a near impossible bank loan that will take 13 plus years to breakeven on the solar purchase.

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:50 am

Tim,

Tim Hebert wrote:Two years ago I obtained a couple of quotes from local solar equipment installers in San Diego County. The average total cost for inversion equipment and what I needed for panels was approximately $75K. Subtract the Federal and State rebates, the cost was down to around $50K. Return on investment (RIO) was 13 years!


Holy crap! Something smells fishy here, but it could just be that our loads are very different. But let me tell my story. I added my grid-tie solar PV system to my south-facing roof on my Huntington Beach home in NOV 2003. Before Fed+State rebates, the total price for a 3.3kW system (33 BP panels rated at 100W max each, along with two string tie inverters and shutoff switches) was just shy of $35K. After the rebates, my out of pocket was just shy of $25K. But even with that lower price, my (very conservative) ROI was ~12 years, and that assumed no increase in wholesale electricity prices, which has happened in the intervening years, thus reducing my payback period.

Not sure what your total loads or typical monthly electric bill is compared to mine. However, while I do not have any A/C in my home (3 miles from the beach you don't need it), I do have a pool filter/pump which makes the load from a typical refrigerator pale in comparison. But every year since 2004 I have generated more power on an annual basis that I consume, so I am pretty happy in that all I end up paying per month is for grid connection...about $1.50 per month.

Assuming our load profiles are somewhat similar (maybe not a good assumption), I would say the price escalation could very well be a predatory market that is seeking to maximize its profits ESPECIALLY since Obama was basically a mouthpiece for Gore during the 2008 campaign, and all his green energy activities since taking the WH have pretty much goaded the whole market into extracting the maximum that the market could bear....with tidy GOV subsidies, of course!

Interested to hear your thoughts on the above... Either way though, it is naive for anyone to think "green energy crooks" are any less crooked than "big oil crooks." In my view, it is classed as a "fad" and we all know fads are expensive!
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby Tim Hebert » Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:46 am

Ray,

What was estimated for my house was a 7+KW system. I have a 4000 sqft home. I have A/C and use it due to the 100 plus degree days during the summer. I live right next to the Wild Animal Park, outside of Escondido and it will reach up to 116 degrees on occasion. Plus I have a good size pool which my wife convince me was of the utmost importance. Because of that stupidity, I am the "pool boy." So you and I are well versed in the costs associated to run the filter/pump. I do have solar heating for the pool and spa. That has worked out well.

I've talked to other home owners in the area and the quotes given to me were consistant. The problem is that going solar is an expensive endeavor at this given point in time. Lack of competition? If so, hopefully as other companies come on line then perhaps the price will drop. There was a possibility this past summer that San Diego County would have partnered with a solar provider and tacked on the cost of the system on my property taxes. This would have allowed me to pay for the system at a nominal yearly cost spread out over 20 years. This was eventually shot down by the provider as he was only willing to deal with homes that had a certain level of equity in the home. This pretty much screwed most of us in the county. I bitched and moaned to my local state assemblyman and state senator, but predictabally, plenty of talk but no action.

The only way for anyone to make money in any green economy is through government rebates/subsidies. I have yet seen any green system or infrastructure pay for itself. Any idea how successful that huge wind farm is around Palm Springs?

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby Access Denied » Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:55 am

The Nissan Leaf is gay...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

The Ford Nucleon was a nuclear-powered concept car developed by Ford Motor Company in 1958. The design did not include an internal-combustion engine, rather, the vehicle was to be powered by a small nuclear reactor in the rear of the vehicle.

Image

It was said that cars like the Nucleon would be able to travel 8000 km (5,000 miles) or more, depending on the size of the core, without recharging.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby Tim Hebert » Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:47 am

Access Denied wrote:The Ford Nucleon was a nuclear-powered concept car developed by Ford Motor Company in 1958.

Instead, Ford gave us the Edsel. On a serious note...

The Chevrolet Volt is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle being produced by the Chevrolet division of General Motors and will be launched November 30, 2010 as a 2011 model. Its propulsion system is based on GM's new Voltec (formerly known as E-Flex) electric automobile platform, which differs significantly from GM's earlier BAS Hybrid and Two-Mode Hybrid systems. The Volt is capable of traveling between 25 to 50 miles (40 to 80 km) solely powered by the electrical energy stored in its on-board battery pack.[4][5] The car's 16 kW·h (10.4 kW·h usable) lithium-ion battery battery pack can be fully charged by plugging the car into a 120-240VAC residential electrical outlet using the provided SAE J1772-compliant[6][7] charging cord


With fully charged batteries and under normal driving and climate conditions, the Volt has an expected all-electric range of 40 miles (64 km), a distance longer than the daily commute for 75% of Americans,[9] whose average commute trip is 33 miles (53 km).


This should bring down the state's power grid quite nicely when we're all plugging in our cars for the night. At $40K a piece...I'll let AD have first crack at this little jewel. :) ...I'll chip in for the extension cord.

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby Access Denied » Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:35 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:Instead, Ford gave us the Edsel.

I’ve always been a Chevy (3 ’69 Camaros) or Mopar (2 ’69 Roaduruners) kind of guy but as fate would have it, I currently own a ’05 Mustang GT and an ’10 Edge… go figure. I was a good Obamanaut and did the Cash for Clunkers thing and traded in my slammed and rodded ’98 GMC Sierra 1500 with 240,000 miles on it for the Edge. Given the MPG difference it only costs me around $150 per month and I can I say I did my part to stimulate the economy...

Image

Tim Hebert wrote:This should bring down the state's power grid quite nicely when we're all plugging in our cars for the night. At $40K a piece...I'll let AD have first crack at this little jewel. :) ...I'll chip in for the extension cord.

Actually, it appears the Leaf would be more “economical” for me than the Volt given I have a 100 mile (round trip) commute so maybe not that gay…

Nissan Leaf Range: 100 miles
120 V Charging Time: 20 Hours = 36 kWh = $5.40 (not an option, takes too long)
240 V Charging Time: 8 Hours = 57.6 kWh = $8.64

Chevy Volt Range: 40 miles + 33 MPG * 9.3 gal = 350 miles
120 V Charging Time: 8 Hours = 36 kWh = $5.40 + $5.91 = $11.31
240 V Charging Time: 3 Hours = 54 kWh = $8.10 + $5.91= $14.01

Note: Figures based on 15 A and 30 A charging currents for comparison purposes only, $0.15/kWh and $3.25/gal, and not recharging the Volt for free during the day which would save $3.94 on gas and make it $1.27 cheaper than the Leaf.

On the other hand, the Tesla Roadster is decidedly not gay…

Range: 240 miles
120 V Charging Time: 48 hours
240 V Charging Time: 4 hours (@ 90 A)

Image

Upside: 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds 8)
Downside: $109,000 :(

Of course as CARB now begins to fully implement AB 32, California’s Global Warming “Solutions” Act, the price of both gas and electricity is going to double or triple by most estimates forcing many people to move or ride a bicycle. The cost of public transportation will rise accordingly and may become prohibitively expensive for many as well.

As for me I’ll be riding my Harley that gets 45 MPG… :D
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

When is hypocrisy AOK?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:21 pm

Answer: Apparently, it is OK to be hypocritical when you are trying to sell a liberal story of planetary doom as if it is veridical science. Anthony Watts points out the outright hypocrisy of the New York Times deciding to participate in the Wikileaks leaking of classified information, but did not participate in the Climategate affair:

Hypocrisy Meter Pegged At The New York Times

The New York Times is participating in the dissemination of the stolen State Department cables that have been made available to it in one way or another via WikiLeaks. My friend Steve Hayward recalls that only last year the New York Times ostentatiously declined to publish or post any of the Climategate e-mails because they had been illegally obtained.

Surely readers will recall Times reporter Andrew Revkin’s inspiring statement of principle:

“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”


That anyone could, at this point, believe that mainstream media outlets do not fully participate in advancing partisan agendas is quite naive. And as we so often see, exposition of hypocrisy is the one great equalizer, as it can fully level any house of cards that someone has built. Poor old Al Gore just does not realize that his house of cards has completely fallen...and so he keeps on. I say we nominate Gore as the world's first Global Idiot (because it takes more than a village to put one over on the world's astute citizens).

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:21 am

Theoretically the practice referred to in the title of this thread is now officially prohibited...

New federal guidelines intended to secure scientific integrity
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2010/12/Gover ... integrity/

Seventeen months after President Barack Obama issued a memorandum about the need for well-defined guidelines to govern scientific integrity and ensure that a free flow of productive research can take place without political interference, the Office of Science and Technology Policy finally delivered.

Just four pages long, the new memorandum from Science Czar John P. Holdren was distributed to the administration’s various departments, advising them to follow uniform rules and practices for the following areas: foundations of scientific integrity in government, public communication about science, the use of advisory committees and the professional development of scientists.

The document is the product of an initiative that began soon after President Barack Obama took office. In March 2009, Obama issued a memorandum on scientific integrity that forbade the distortion of science for political ends. The move seemed to signal a clear departure from practices adopted during the administration of President George W. Bush, which faced accusations of weakening the role of science in regulatory agencies and of muzzling scientists whose views were at odds with those of the White House.

However, I’m afraid the very first comment at the above link presents a formidable challenge to compliance with this new self-imposed policy…

The process is pretty simple. For the last 500 years, or so, it's been known as the Single Standard for Scientific Truth, as follows:
Hypothesize: Your science as a factual principle/condition/issue.
Improvise: Methodology to demonstrate the validity of Hypothesis.
Empericize: Actuate the Methodology to physically verify validity.
Replicate: Improvise separate Methodology that Replicates Hypothesis.
As for CO2 caused Global Warming, we are still at Hypothesis point.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron