Misuse of Scientific Data By the White House

Science data nerds writes "The White House is consistently and persistently claiming that the US is doing better than Europe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is false — their claim is purely based on carefully selecting the only subset of the data that supports this conclusion. When all the data are used, it is plain that European emissions have declined substantially and US emissions have grown substantially. The article, and this linked analysis, debunk the White House claims."

Obligatory recommended reading

[Raul654]

For everyone interested in this topic, Chris Mooney's [wikipedia.org] The Republican War on Science [wikipedia.org] is required reading.

All cited articles are from the same source

[daveschroeder]

The submitter, the analysis, and the relevant claims in the first linked article are from the "Pacific Institute". That's fine and doesn't mean anything about it is incorrect, but probably means there is an agenda at work - surprise, just as there's an "agenda" served by the White House, too - and this is also a factual statement:

Pick any year since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in 1997, Mr. Bush should have said, and the U.S. CO2 emission performance is superior to that of all major Kyoto parties, including and most notably Europe (CO2 being the focus of the many pending legislative proposals).

Also, the submission complains that the US metric shown in a positive light - surprising they'd choose something that reflects positively! - is that because only CO2 emissions are considered. Well, CO2 emissions account for nearly three quarters of all greenhouse gas emissions [wikimedia.org].

Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time. There is no magical time in terms of statistical length or any point in time that is any more valid than any other. You can argue that the submitter is "cherry picking" his own data. It's laughable to say there is a "right" base year.

Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.

Unsurprising

[Anonymous Coward]

The White House is full of graduates from Regent University - Pat Robertson's fiefdom. Since Pat Robertson is willing to go to great lengths (including calling for the assassination of foreign leaders) to impose his anachronistic views, it stands to reason that his graduates will think nothing of lying when it push theirs.

Re:They All Do It.

[Lars T.]

Exactly, and the US emissions pale in comparison to the Chinese and soon the Indian subcontinent.

You know, you liars have been climing that for a long time, yet China (with about 5 times as many people as the US) still hasn't passed the US in CO2 production.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source

[daveschroeder]

*Sigh.*

The good ol' SUV argument. Knew that'd come in somewhere!

1. All of GM's full size trucks and SUVs - GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, and pickup trucks and fleet vehicles - will have the most advanced two-mode full hybrid system to date [autobloggreen.com] on nearly any consumer vehicle for MY2008.

2. GM's bread and butter is the full size trucks; it can't compete with Toyota in the car market, and it doesn't have anything to do with "greener" (though increased fuel efficiency is a valid pragmatic argument for many). So GM is going after the market it knows and knows well with more efficient high-technology hybrids. Seriously, the amount of engineering in these things is incredible.

Hybrids are not some panacea; it's all about increasing efficiency for the type of vehicle in question. It's frankly no one's business to judge how big is "too big"; it could be argued that a Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid are "too big" or "more than someone needs". You could even argue that carpooling or small 1- or 2-person vehicles would serve many just fine. Then we start going down the road of taking away personal freedoms and mandating sizes and shapes of vehicles. I suppose in some nations, that would fly.

Re:They All Do It.

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago, I was assigned to write a story about a policy analysis that predicted the economic consequences of a new school funding plan in my state (adding about $1 billion to k-12 funding). Just for grins, I found an equally compelling study that found the opposite conclusion (though it wasn't based exactly on the school funding plan, it did model the state economy and the impact of new taxes, government hiring, etc.) I called the writers of both studies, who freely admitted their models are based on assumptions -- such as that taxation and the new government jobs it supports are a drag on the economy. Then, I talked with a few state lawmakers, who all also freely admitted that what they and their collegues do when confronted with all these conflicting studies is pick whichever study supports their pre-conceived notions and call it "evidence."

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget the UK gallon is larger than the US gallon - by 25%, no less. (Goes as 1 pint US = 16 oz, 1piny UK = 20 oz). That makes all mpg values way better in UK....

Re:They All Do It.

[homer_ca]

Come on. It's really not that hard to get emissions data on China. Pollutants like sulfur oxides, soot and mercury are harmful in trace amounts in exhaust, and emissions can vary widely depending on the pollution controls in place. However, CO2 is the main compound that results from combustion of coal. Just knowing total coal consumption is enough to estimate CO2 emissions accurately. And we do know how much coal they produce and use. How hard is it to Google "China coal consumption 2005"? I'll save you the trouble and paste this hit from the first page:

Policy Briefs

            "Coal consumption reached more than 2 billion tons. in 2005, almost twice the coal consumption of the United. States, even though China's economy is only ..."
            www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb06-6.pdf

Oh, and news flash: wood is not a fossil fuel.

Not so simple

[DerekLyons]

Take a look at US and UK BMW websites. The UK entry level model gets 40MPG, which is not much worse than our Prius. Living proof that we can double our car fuel efficiency NOW if we just stop being apathetic about it.

Is the UK entry level model street legal in the US? Does it meet US emissions and safety requirements? (For that matter, what constitues a 'UK entry level model', as no model is designated as such on the UK BMW website that I can find.)

How blatant do the lies have to get?

[HangingChad]

but just see an opportunity to bash Bush.

How blatant do the lies have to be before it's justified? How can someone lie to you so much and so often yet you...apparently...seem to still support them?

Saying Bush cherry picks statistics and manipulates data to mislead the public (i.e. lying) cannot be doubted by a reasonable person. The truth doesn't have many friends these days, might ask yourself if you're one of them.

GW "reliably lies" now

[stabiesoft]

The current administration *always* lies, so the truth is just the opposite of what they say. GW's methods have made it so easy to know where the truth is. So, we know if GW says we are doing better the than EU on emissions, than the truth is the EU is doing better than we are. So simple!

Re:They All Do It.

[quantaman]

I am sick of people countering arguments with just words. Put up the link where you got your info or shutup.

Okay [bloomberg.com]

China will probably become the biggest greenhouse gas emitter this year or next, International Energy Agency Chief Economist Fatih Birol said in April. Ma said today this is inevitable and he can't estimate when it will happen.

...

The country's[China's] greenhouse gas emissions reached 5.6 billion tons in 2004, of which 5.05 billion tons were carbon dioxide, the commission said in the report. U.S. emissions that year reached 7.12 billion tons, according to the Department of Energy.

NASA Administrator

[mdsolar]

Griffin did not dispute the reality of global warming, he's just not sure it is worth doing anything about it. This is strange coming from an engineer since one would think the basic reaction would be "Wow! If we can change the planet with out meaning to, what could we do if we engineered it?" but he seems to have some philosophical hangup about not interfering in how we are interfering with the planet. Here's a summary: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrat or_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global_Warming_A_Probl em_999.html [spacedaily.com].

More to the point on emissions from various countries, here is a recent Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tabulation of emission trends. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1 [pnas.org]. China appears to be primarily responsible for the acceleration of emissions. With the US reducing it's emissions 1.3% between 2005 and 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831796/ [msn.com], it look as though China will continue to dominate the acceleration.

While TFA has some valid points, the main thing is that industrialized countries have a better opportunity to slow or reduce emissions since, for them, efficiency improvements can pace growth while for developing nations efficiency cannot help with a growth from zero situation.
--
Out pace growth: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Re:As Fry Would say...

[sumdumass]

Well, you might as well tack on another mistake I made. The claims were based in a study by the International Energy Agency which is separate from the IPCC I attributed it to. So change the IPCC to the IEA also.

Sorry about any inconvenience or wrong interpretation that may have led to.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source

[WaZiX]

Not only is any other year just as valid, but Bush is talking about Bush's policies.

No it's not. Have you even RTFA? (no I'm not new here)

Not only is the data 2000-2004 the only data set in which the US does better then the EU, but also, the main reason why this data set is this way is because of the sharp decline in 2001 of emissions because of a steep decrease in Airplane transportation and economic slowdown because of 9/11.

So, unless you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, there is absolutely no reasonable way to give any credit to the Bush administration for these figures.

This is obvious data manipulation since you cherry pick your data set (and again, it's the _ONLY_ data set where the US does better then the EU, and the explanation of this is all due to an external variable which is not mentioned in the report. They also just use CO2 emissions, when you take into account every greenhouse gas emmission, again, the UE fares better.

I actually suggest you RTF pdf, it's only 5 pages (4 pages of text) long, I'm sure you can manage that.

Has anyone read the report

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

It's purely political. Now you might say the same about U.S. DOE releases.

But I refuse - completely - to read any "scientific" report that has "bush is evil" and "the washington times had the nerve to discredit me" on the first page.

Why ? Because such statements DO NOT belong in a scientific study. Neutral references from both sides, in peer-reviewed journals, yes. Note that still would mean that the washington times is off limits.

Also why is the study house so young ?

There are so many things wrong with calling this a "study" that it's ridiculous.

Re:All cited articles are from the same source

[Weedlekin]

"why were EU rates not growing PRIOR to Kyoto, but then started growing after Kyoto, while in the US the growth has actually slowed since 2000?"

Could it perhaps be due to the fact that Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia have joined the EU since 2000, most of which are ex-Soviet satellites whose power generation systems and industries do not yet meet EC pollution standards?

Not 24% different

[Anonymous Coward]

Your US fluid oz is bigger than our UK fluid oz.

So the number of oz per gallon doesn't relate to the different size of the gallon.

The UK gallon is a little bigger.

Re:Not so simple

[Alioth]

The UK model will meet US safety and emissions standards, but it won't be street legal as-is, due to minor things such as the differences in the kinds of lighting allowed on the vehicle. In the UK fog lights are mandatory, in the US they are illegal. In the UK, flashing brake lights are legal as turn signals, in the UK (on a new car) flashing brake lights are illegal. The steering wheel will be on the wrong side for the US, although that's probably not a street legality problem as the USPS drive right hand drive vehicles.

It is very likely that BMW makes their cars to pass the country who has the strictest emissions and safety standards, so they can build one body shell and one engine for the whole world as this decreases manufacturing costs.

Re:Ah, a nice flame war

[Lemmy Caution]

Ah, you cited the "10,000 climatologists" of the Heidelberg appeal.

First, that's not what the Heidelberg appeal was about. It was signed by 4,000 self-described "scientists," not climatologists, and was essentially a position piece arguing against the idea of a "natural state," not a critique of climate change theory itself. It was written about 10 years ago, and many of its signatories have since gone on record as recognizing the reality of human causes to climate change.

You may be confusing it with the "Oregon petition." [wikipedia.org] It is now recognized, generally, as a fraud. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine [wikipedia.org] is run from a small warehouse in the middle of rural Oregon. It is not a reputable scientific institute.

The truth of the matter is that these statements are motivated by forces who enjoy considerable prosperity based on practices which are threatened by responsible environmental policy. They know that they can't really win the debate on scientific grounds: instead, they want to create enough doubt and dissension that they can continue to enjoy maximal profits for as long as possible. Your "growing economy" is irresponsible and selfish.

Re:NASA Administrator

[Wolfger]

he seems to have some philosophical hangup about not interfering in how we are interfering with the planet.

Yeah. That philosophy, I believe, is called "I like my job, and I work for the government during the Bush regime."

Re:Has anyone read the report

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You forget how plants work. More co2 in the athmosphere increases their "fuel" they need to increase their biomass. More heat means that the plants can actually use more of that fuel, thereby reducing co2 levels in the athmosphere.

"But what about deforestation ?" - Doesn't matter. Trees don't actually contribute that much to biomass (which you can verify by going into just about any forest). Certainly not compared to algae or moss or grass.

Re:not true

[freedomseven]

Look I thought that it was weird to, but the Avis literature told me to put leaded gas in the tank and it was easy because that was all that was available. Even if it was not, you are talking about and additive that was banned in the US in the 70's and the high and mighty EU didn't get the memo until 2000?

Re:Pollution is directly related to population

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your wikipedia page and raise you another [wikipedia.org].

Europe's population has been stable within 1 per cent or so for the past 15 years - it's a non-issue at the moment. Immigration balances the sub-replacement birth rate.

Still, demographic changes might indeed make a real difference to pollution levels. And in the future the population is predicted to fall, but we could simply allow more immigration if we start feeling lonely :)