Dangerous politicians using junk science to raise low carbon taxes

Diet is probably the biggest factor for human CO2 emissions. A vegan or even vegetarian cyclist probably has lower annual CO2 emissions than a beef eater who travels the same distance as an extra passenger in a car.

 

I agree.

 

The danger comes from politicians ignoring science or misleading the public under the cloak of science as they misrepresent it.
I can thoroughly recommend The Geek Manifesto: Why Science Matters by Mark Henderson
The Geek Manifesto: Why science matters: Mark Henderson: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

 

With all respect due, anybody who bought Orcutt's argument is hopeless.

 

I can't decide where this thread is going. Should politicians that lie, or who are ignorant or stupid be impeached? Who would then fill the seats in Congress or our legislatures? Our representatives are (and should be) representative of US. And that is perhaps what makes it all so difficult to take. To paraphrase Madison, would we propose angels in the guise of men to watch over us? The idea of a Frederick the Great of Prussia is a seductive one, but we can't accept that in the paradigm of our system.

People who do the sorts of things discussed in this thread should be exposed. We must believe that the truth, when presented for the proper ends, will prevail. Or else most of what we do is futile......

 

Rico, I'd say that politicians that say things that are patently false or misleading should at the very least be censured.
Under the Westminster system (Britain, Australia, Canada) a member who misleads parliament can be censured by the parliament. It amounts to a bit more than a slap on the wrist; not quite as harsh as impeachment. There's also no-confidence motions; the Canadian Government was forced to go to an election in 2006, though it didn't lose a vote of no confidence.
We're not talking about matters of opinion, but matters stated as fact. The Geek Manifesto shows a number of cases in the UK where a concentrated campaign of research, fact-finding and publishing put the lie to a number of howlers enough to make at least some politicians think before they speak.
A lawyer as politician doesn't need facts, they simply need to fight for their side of the argument. Scientists know that it doesn't matter how many degrees you have or how many august organisations you are a member of or how many awards you have won; if your hypothesis does not match observation, you are wrong. Politicians don't like [it when when other people discover that they are] making mistakes.

 

Oh, I don't believe I ever even alluded to opinion in my post. OK, I'm out of here, you win, Mr. Internet Genius. But I'll leave you with a quote from pop culture:

1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

-Agent Jay, MIB

 

Orcutt is ok with me. At least he admits that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a pollutant. That's better than about 85% of his party. And, he admits when he makes a mistake. That puts him ahead of 85% of all politicians.

We could use more Republicans like him.

 

Talk about faint praise LOL

 

Orcutt doesn't represent my district, but does work in my state.

A decade or two ago, our state Supreme Court ruled that politicians have a state constitutional right to lie to the voters. Or more importantly, it is up to the voters, and only the voters, to determine what is the truth and what is false, and to mete out punishments at the polls. The courts cannot do the judging.

While our Congress does have criminal penalties for lying under oath to Congress, this applies only to non-members called to testify. The members themselves never testify under oath from the floor, they only do the interrogation and grandstanding from the bench.

 

According to this study (http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/ECF_CO2_WEB.pdf), cycling produces 21 g CO2 per km. 5 g for the production and maintenance of te bike (page 9) and the rest from the cyclist (page 10). But it's based on European average food consumption and a person weighing 70 kg.

Also cycling is healthy, not only because of the exercise, but also for other reasons:
- no small dust particles are produced (or hardly any)
- peopel inside cars breath more polluted air than cyclists that pass them... (Can't find the link to that research, but I read the research report a while ago)

Oh, the ECF report also mentions that just sitting in and driving your car produces 1.5 g CO2/km.

 

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

And when I shred my way through the bush, my pruning stimulates new growth in shrubs and trees, further compensating my CO2 production. He may not be familiar with Australian flora, but with his forestry qualifications I'm sure that he would understand my logic.

Hopefully he just made a boo-boo and is open to reason.

 

How many cyclists do you know that combust fossil fuels ?

 

Exactly.