Re: [Phys-l] what kind of scientific suppression is this?

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

Rick Tarara wrote:

> Can we take all the political bashing of the right and left off this 
> list--take it to PHYSOC if you must (far left liberals are very welcome 
> there and conservatives even tolerated). 

Except for bc, who was referred to the "owner "when attempting to join,  
and hasn't "heard" from him.  [This was the second try, IIRC.]

> Suffice it to say that both 
> extremes of the Global warming debate have played hard and fast with the 
> facts, that governments (all) tend to shape those same facts to their 
> purposes,
examples (on the sky is falling side) please.

> and despite the illusion of unanimity on the issue amongst 
> scientists, we need only look to this list to see that many here are not so 
> ready to get on board the 'humans are destroying the planet' express. 
It's the unanimity ? of the climate scientists that counts, IMAO.

> {A 
> good friend, initially trained as a physicist to the masters level then 
> turned air/water pollution engineer, is an extreme skeptic.}
>
> There was, recently an interesting discussion on PHYSOC about the much 
> touted announcement by the EU about commiting to more stringent CO2 
> controls.  Apparently such is mostly illusion (with only GB actually doing 
> anything) due to a lot of technical and statistical shuffling of the 
> numbers.  Turns out that little new (or old) is actually being done in 
> Europe at all.
>
> Another example of playing with numbers (this time to bash the U.S.) was the 
> recent report that the U.S. was expected to increase emissions by 20% from 
> 2000-2020 (not counting any possible [probable] new initiatives to be taken 
> in the next 13 years.)  Check out the expected population rise in that 
> period--seems to me that a 20% increase in emmisions represents a NET 
> reduction in emissions per person, even without taking any explicit steps 
> towards a 'cleanup'.  Of course that was NOT reported.
>  

Worse than the pop. rise is the huge increase in the prosperity in the 
former third world, which will increase disproportionally the CO2 
emission, etc.

> Rick
>
>  
bc, who wonders the result of the trade off in the new use of a 
mechanical dish washer instead of the bc one.