Hmmm, Dems yet again ignore science.....

[quade 3]

There are some people that see science as a political football to be tossed around depending on whether or not the "science" supports or refudiates (is that a word?) their personal point of view.

Beyond the "science" of the oil spill, I believe the Administration was simply being prudent to put a moratorium on drilling until it could be determined if there were other drilling operations in a similar situation as the Deep Water Horizons project. To find out how much corporate pressure was being placed on the drill operators to take short cuts in safe drilling procedures.

Honestly, I don't think you even need to consider the "science" of drilling to understand the basic human nature and corporate pressures to do things quickly in order to suspect other wells might be close to the same state.

Given the circumstances, I don't think the moratorium was anything but prudent until things could be investigated a little.

It's a bit like when they briefly ground a particular type of airplane because they find an issue with one of them like a crack in a frame or sheer pins that hold on an engine.

It just makes sense.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

There are some people that see science as a political football to be tossed around depending on whether or not the "science" supports or refudiates (is that a word?) their personal point of view.

Beyond the "science" of the oil spill, I believe the Administration was simply being prudent to put a moratorium on drilling until it could be determined if there were other drilling operations in a similar situation as the Deep Water Horizons project. To find out how much corporate pressure was being placed on the drill operators to take short cuts in safe drilling procedures.

Honestly, I don't think you even need to consider the "science" of drilling to understand the basic human nature and corporate pressures to do things quickly in order to suspect other wells might be close to the same state.

Given the circumstances, I don't think the moratorium was anything but prudent until things could be investigated a little.

It's a bit like when they briefly ground a particular type of airplane because they find an issue with one of them like a crack in a frame or sheer pins that hold on an engine.

It just makes sense.

Fine, I see that point but
They chose to misrepresent info they asked for to back up their belief or position. They lied about info given them and pissed on those they asked for it from. that was my point. What they did was bull shit

Nice people to do business with huh......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>So, if you were on a scientific panel that was asked by the Senate at to
>whether or not solar panels should be put somewhere. You study it and and
>recommend that they do.

No, that would be a policy panel. Here's how it works:

If I was on a scientific study panel to look into a specific solar installation, I would determine costs, projected costs as technology improved, and how much the power could be sold for now and in the future. I'd figure out how much maintenance would be needed, and how often replacements would be required. I'd determine the effects of the change in albedo of the area, the change in the environment around the power plant, and how rainfall would increase/decrease total power output. I'd probably also look into tracking vs non tracking, best angles based on clouds/obscuration and what sort of peak power point tracking the system would use.

After all that I'd write up a report with an executive summary listing how much it would cost, how much it will make, how much power it will generate over its life etc etc. Then someone would use that report to decide whether or not to build it.

Now, I could be super pro solar, and could include my opinions in that report. I could say "yes, it will be expensive, but we GOTTA DO IT!" And the politician in charge of the money could say "no, that's not a good use of money; taxes are already high enough here." He could then announce at a press conference that my report revealed that it was too expensive to afford.

That is not lying. Indeed, that's how it works how it is supposed to work.

I fixed it for you. On smaller issues it is, indeed, how it often works. For example, on a specific solar panel installation it would not be something of a large general interest so the system you describe would be useful.

Let me tell you how this usually works in the situation of a large policy decision:

My finger having been in the wind for a while, I would realize that there is an issue that I want done. Some lobbyists a couple of months ago have drafted legislation to fund the building of the "Lawrocket Solar Farming Installation" and something like that sounds really groovy. I therefore decide to convene a scientific panel on the solar installation to determine costs, projected costs as technology improved, and how much the power could be sold for now and in the future. I'd figure out how much maintenance would be needed, and how often replacements would be required. I'd determine the effects of the change in albedo of the area, the change in the environment around the power plant, and how rainfall would increase/decrease total power output. I'd probably also look into tracking vs non tracking, best angles based on clouds/obscuration and what sort of peak power point tracking the system would use. I would also need to determine siting for this place.

For my panel I will ask my lobbyists to recommend a couple of economists, a civil engineer, an environmental engineer, a geologist, an electrical engineer, a climate scientist, materiels scientists, and a couple of general contractors. I want them to explain the costs and timeframes of this project.

The report is put out, and I present that the panel of distinguished scientists and engineers have foudn the project to be feasible, but fierce opposition is mounted and the measure stalls.

PG&E, who has invested in this project and wants it built because the bill provides a subsidy for green power production and an extension of monopoly benefits to the utility, has a couple of its natural gas plants shut down for "emergency maintenance" during July and August, resulting in rolling blackouts during heat waves.

At this point in time the the politician and the lobbyists - already well prepared with their PR playbook - take to the airwaves to point out that scientists have stated that this can be done. It costs a lot of money but we cannot afford not to act.

Other scientific studies have been performed, showing that the blackout situation will be even bleaker in ten years unless this plant is built now. furthermore, the energy is clean energy and renewable.

At the press conference, a number of lab coats will be worn, except for a couple of celebrities (there's no such thing as a good policy decision that does not include the endorsement of Barbra Streisand). Meetings with editorial boards, etc., will occur.

Eventually, the idea will be stated so often that it becomes accepted as fact that such a place is needed. Once an issue is supported by scientists and celebrities it makes the news.

My wife is hotter than your wife.