Junk Science Returns to the White House

[toomuchtime_]

Regardless of your tribal affiliations, were you cautiously optimistic when our new president promised to "restore science to its rightful place" in the formulation of public policy? Were you embarrassed by the prior occupant's politicization of issues that should have been decided on a more scientific basis? Did you assume that Barack Obama would surround himself with apolitical science advisors unencumbered by embarrassing anti-science baggage and free of culture-war axes to grind?

To paraphrase a once famous mayor of New York - So how's he doing so far?

You're probably aware that the H1N1 swine flu vaccine supply has fallen dangerously short of the level required to protect the most vulnerable among us. In the spring Federal officials predicted that as many as 120 million doses would be available by now, as opposed to the 16 million doses that actually arrived. Flu vaccine is tricky to make under the best of circumstances, but there are scientifically safe and proven ways to stretch supplies. Are you aware that the Federal Government refuses to allow the use of adjuvants that can be used to produce twice as many doses from the same vaccine stock? This despite the fact that over 40 million doses of flu vaccine containing adjuvants have been dispensed in Europe over the past dozen years without any indication of a safety issue. Some people denied shots because of this decision are going to die. Does this policy sound scientific or political?

You're probably aware that a mercury-containing preservative called thimerosal was removed from children's vaccines in 2001 to mollify activists promoting the theory that thimerosal causes autism. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there was then and is still now no scientific evidence linking thimerosal to autism. Despite numerous peer-reviewed studies as well as the empirical fact that autism rates have not plunged since the 2001 thimerosal ban, as one would expect if the preservative were a leading cause of this heart breaking illness, the administration recently made a decision that further reduced the supply of H1N1 vaccine. It switched our country's emergency H1N1 vaccine order from multi-dose to single-dose vials, causing production chain backups as vendors scrambled to accommodate the last-minute switch. Why the change? Because single-dose vials contain a lower concentration of thimerosal. Some people denied shots because of this decision are going to die. Does this policy sound scientific or political?

Did you know that despite the melting ice cap there are estimated to be five times as many polar bears wandering the northern regions of our planet today than there were fifty years ago? Studies indicate that the biggest threat to polar bears are not present climate conditions but forecasts of future conditions made by climate models. These are the same models that have been unable to explain why the hottest year on record was actually 11 years ago despite increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and that the world's oceans appear to be cooling. This has not stopped the administration from proposing that 200,000 square miles of land, sea, and ice along the northern coast of Alaska be designated as "critical habitat for this iconic species." Does reading this statement make you wonder whether polar bears are genuinely endangered or merely charismatic? Does this policy sound scientific or political?

Did you catch the recent peer-reviewed article by Princeton's Tim Searchinger in Science magazine on the impact of biofuels on global warming? The authors found that "corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%." Has the White House called for a halt on ethanol subsidies and blending mandates? Is Obama asking legislators to heed the scientific evidence and pull back from this widely recognized economic and ecological blunder? No. Does this policy sound scientific or political?

RealClearMarkets - Junk Science Returns to the White House

 

[saveliberty]

Good information. This general discussion was held last week. I was told it was the egg manufacturer's fault. One of the funniest and sadest points of the week.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Good information. This general discussion was held last week. I was told it was the egg manufacturer's fault. One of the funniest and sadest points of the week.

Egg manufacturers? Obama's blaming it on the chickens?

As the number of dead children continues to rise, voters are going to want to blame some one, just as they did as the full horror of Katrina sank in, and if the Obama administration seems to have made politically motivated decisions that contributed to the shortage of vaccine, and thus to more dead children, or if the WH appears not to have exercised due diligence in overseeing the process, it could bring about a tipping point in voter approval that costs the Dems control of the House and their super majority in the Senate next year and that denies Obama the Dem nomination in 2012.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Global Warming = The World's Largest Doomsday Cult. Carbon Dioxide really wont be the death of us all. Shame on the Global Warming fanatics and their hysterical fear mongering.

 

[Polk]

1. You're making the assumption (without evidence) that the vaccine was produced in single-dose form due to lower thimerosal content.

2. The hottest year on record was eleven years ago according to some sources (others say 2005 was hotter). In any even, we're still in the middle of a huge warming trend. And yes, the models can explain why.

3. Ethanol is a huge waste, but as long as Iowa remains such a bellwether state, neither party is going to shoot themselves in the face by cutting the subsidies.

 

[ayiakri]

1. You're making the assumption (without evidence) that the vaccine was produced in single-dose form due to lower thimerosal content.

2. The hottest year on record was eleven years ago according to some sources (others say 2005 was hotter). In any even, we're still in the middle of a huge warming trend. And yes, the models can explain why.

3. Ethanol is a huge waste, but as long as Iowa remains such a bellwether state, neither party is going to shoot themselves in the face by cutting the subsidies.

(and I'd add that, according to NASA, "The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008" - from data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ )

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes but what is a "Warming Trend?" It seems like the goal posts keep getting moved on that one. What amount of time makes up a "Trend?" It seems that our Society has become so hyper-sensitive and prone to panic & fear mongering. The study of Climate really isn't an exact Science like so many like to claim it is. It really is incredibly complicated. They need to better define the word "Trend" in my opinion. Accurate records of Climate Change have only been possible in recent times. The rest of the studies before recent times are only based on opinion & conjecture. In the end much more needs to be studied before we engage in all this hysterical fear mongering. The Global Warming Fanatics have simply jumped the gun with all their panic and fear mongering in my opinion. The Sun is the more likely cause of any significant climate change. Carbon Dioxide is not nearly the Boogeyman it has been made out to be. Less pollution is a good and i think most people agree on that but there really is no need for all this panic stuff. Hey just my take anyway.

 

[Polk]

Take it up with the hard data:

The Earth is still warming, not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming, according to an analysis of global temperatures by independent statistics experts.

...

The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time. And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.

Global warming skeptics are basing their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. They say that since then, temperatures have fallen — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, dropped again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

Statisticians said the ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

The Associated Press: Statistics experts reject global cooling claims

 

[rdean]

I don't even need to do any research on this because I was a kid when treaties were signed to stop hunting the polar bears, get this, "50 years ago".

So the population is 5 times larger because people stopped hunting them (Super frigging DUH!). I bet the last 10 years has seen a decline of polar bears with the disappearance of the "sea ice", their natural hunting grounds.

I remember when it was said the population was less than 5,000 because of over hunting, yea, 50 years ago.

 

[Polk]

I don't even need to do any research on this because I was a kid when treaties were signed to stop hunting the polar bears, get this, "50 years ago".

So the population is 5 times larger because people stopped hunting them (Super frigging DUH!). I bet the last 10 years has seen a decline of polar bears with the disappearance of the "sea ice", their natural hunting grounds.

I remember when it was said the population was less than 5,000 because of over hunting, yea, 50 years ago.

Well, there goes another talking point sunk.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"130 Years?" Hardly a "Trend" when you consider the climate has been changing on this Planet for at least 4.5 Billion Years. The whole "Trend" argument really is pretty weak when you just calm down and stop with all the hysterics and panic. We have very little serious and definitive information on Climate Change before recent times. Any studies before these recent times would have to be regarded as opinion & speculation. There are no absolute facts in studies done on Climate before recent times.

There is a lot of speculation on what the Climate was in various phases of Earth's development and so on. It's all about speculation though. For instance,we do know that more Carbon Dioxide is actually good for plant & crop growth which would lead to feeding more people around the Planet. Global Cooling on the other hand could lead to catastrophic plant & crop failure which would lead to mass starvation around the Planet. There just needs to be so much more studied on Climate Change. There really is no need to panic and fear monger unless you're trying to advance a political agenda. Unfortunately most are just pushing a political agenda at this point. More studies just need to be done.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How fitting... this entire administration is riddled with "junk".

 

[toomuchtime_]

I don't even need to do any research on this because I was a kid when treaties were signed to stop hunting the polar bears, get this, "50 years ago".

So the population is 5 times larger because people stopped hunting them (Super frigging DUH!). I bet the last 10 years has seen a decline of polar bears with the disappearance of the "sea ice", their natural hunting grounds.

I remember when it was said the population was less than 5,000 because of over hunting, yea, 50 years ago.

What treaties are those? I couldn't find any on a google search.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

One credible Scientist said it best on the Global Warming fanatics' using Polar Bears for their fear mongering..."People just need to stop hunting them if they want their populations to increase. Hundreds of Polar Bears are killed each year by hunting and not Global Warming." He went on to add that there is not one single piece of evidence to back up the claim that Global Warming has killed even one Polar Bear. So simply stop killing them and their populations will likely increase. No need for all the hysterical fear mongering.

 

[rdean]

I don't even need to do any research on this because I was a kid when treaties were signed to stop hunting the polar bears, get this, "50 years ago".

So the population is 5 times larger because people stopped hunting them (Super frigging DUH!). I bet the last 10 years has seen a decline of polar bears with the disappearance of the "sea ice", their natural hunting grounds.

I remember when it was said the population was less than 5,000 because of over hunting, yea, 50 years ago.

What treaties are those? I couldn't find any on a google search.

You made me go and look for some. Just curious, what did you search for?

---------------

Anti’s “CITE” Polar Bears And Disregard Science Based Management

The CITES convention is an international agreement between participating governments and is designed to guarantee that any trade in wild animals does not threaten their survival. The Convention was drafted in the 1960s and became effective worldwide on July 1, 1975.

Treaties List

Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora) -- These measures, adopted by the Third Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in 1959, are designed to protect the native birds, mammals, and plants of the Antarctic.

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

The range includes the territory of five nations: Denmark (Greenland), Norway (Svalbard), Russia, US (Alaska) and Canada. These five nations are the signatories of the 1973 International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears, which mandates cooperation on research and conservations efforts throughout the polar bear's range.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I don't even need to do any research on this because I was a kid when treaties were signed to stop hunting the polar bears, get this, "50 years ago".

So the population is 5 times larger because people stopped hunting them (Super frigging DUH!). I bet the last 10 years has seen a decline of polar bears with the disappearance of the "sea ice", their natural hunting grounds.

I remember when it was said the population was less than 5,000 because of over hunting, yea, 50 years ago.

What treaties are those? I couldn't find any on a google search.

You made me go and look for some. Just curious, what did you search for?

---------------

Anti’s “CITE” Polar Bears And Disregard Science Based Management

The CITES convention is an international agreement between participating governments and is designed to guarantee that any trade in wild animals does not threaten their survival. The Convention was drafted in the 1960s and became effective worldwide on July 1, 1975.

Treaties List

Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora) -- These measures, adopted by the Third Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in 1959, are designed to protect the native birds, mammals, and plants of the Antarctic.

Polar bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The range includes the territory of five nations: Denmark (Greenland), Norway (Svalbard), Russia, US (Alaska) and Canada. These five nations are the signatories of the 1973 International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears, which mandates cooperation on research and conservations efforts throughout the polar bear's range.

I believe I searched for "polar bear hunting treaties" but I'm not sure of the order of the terms. All I got was proposals for currently increasing protections. Thanks for the links, but the only one that seems relevant is the "Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears" from the Wiki link, an agreement in principle not a treaty, signed in 1973, and that bans only commercial harvesting of polar bears, not the hunting on them. Each signatory decides independently how to interpret the terms of the agreement, so that Canada has been allowing 500 bears a year to be legally killed by indigenous peoples and sportsmen, which some say is an unsustainable rate, and illegal poaching in Russia is thought to be so substantial that the bears in that country may disappear. Yet, despite all of this hunting at "unsustainable" rates, the polar bear population keeps growing. What may be unsustainable is the use of the word, unsustainable, in this context.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Polar Bears are being killed by hunters not Global Warming. You want their numbers to increase than simply stop hunting them. There is absolutely no evidence to support the Global Warming fanatics' claim that Global Warming is killing Polar Bears. Just more sad fear mongering from the usual suspects.

 

[EriktheRed]

Junk Science Returns to the White House

What??

You mean they're hiring creationists again??

 

[rdean]

Polar Bears are being killed by hunters not Global Warming. You want their numbers to increase than simply stop hunting them. There is absolutely no evidence to support the Global Warming fanatics' claim that Global Warming is killing Polar Bears. Just more sad fear mongering from the usual suspects.

Next you're going to say the arctic ice isn't really disappearing, right? What do you think it means when ice melts?

Arctic ice disappearing

 

[Political Junky]

Polar Bears are being killed by hunters not Global Warming. You want their numbers to increase than simply stop hunting them. There is absolutely no evidence to support the Global Warming fanatics' claim that Global Warming is killing Polar Bears. Just more sad fear mongering from the usual suspects.

Next you're going to say the arctic ice isn't really disappearing, right? What do you think it means when ice melts?

Arctic ice disappearing

Oh, that's such a hard question for a con.