science today, junk tomorrow

One of the most annoying aspects of the political process today is the extreme leverage an unelected few are able to exert when they do so in the name of “science.” Especially environmental “science.” The drowned polar bears are a perfect example.

Polar bears drowning in an Alaskan sea because the ice packs are melting—it’s the iconic image of the global warming debate.

But the validity of the science behind the image—presented as an ignoble testament to our environment in peril by Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth—is now part of a federal investigation that has the environmental community on edge.

Special agents from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears, suggesting mistakes were made in the math and as to how the bears actually died, and the department is eyeing another study currently underway on bear populations.

It’s looking like another example of bad science, but what’s worse than bad science is when trillions are wasted in reliance on it:

Myron Ebell?, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that the government is expected to “spend trillions of dollars to save the world from global warming on the basis of what a few scientists say.”

“There needs to be due diligence, and we need to challenge and investigate every single claim.  The public expects that,” Ebell said.  “But we find over and over that shoddy science has been put forward, and in some cases, dishonest and manipulated science, and they say, ‘Trust us,’ ” Ebell said.

“It’s extremely irresponsible.”

At the rate things are going, people are not going to trust scientists.  But you’d think that when trillion dollar decisions are being made based on their claims, even if they are going to be trusted, whatever happened to “TRUST BUT VERIFY”? There ought to be some form of independent review before science is allowed to dictate public policy.

Ditto, light bulb science.

CFL bulbs offer better lighting for less energy fallacy

CFL bulbs do use less electricity to produce the same amount of light that incandescent bulbs produce.  This is certainly an admirable quality of CFL bulbs.  However, the argument that the upfront expense (roughly 8-10 times that of a standard incandescent) will supposedly be paid for by the longer life span of a CFL bulb is specious at best.   The truth of the matter is that if CFL bulbs simply replace the light bulbs we use on a daily basis, then they will be switched on and off repeatedly, the very same way we use the incandescent bulbs the CFLs were designed to replace.  However, when CFL bulbs are switched on and off, like incandescent bulbs, their life span is reduced by nearly 85%!!! To put it another way, a CFL bulb’s actual life span under real world conditions would be nearly identical to incandescent bulbs — yet they will cost consumers 8 to 10 times as much as a standard incandescent bulb!  With no advantage due to longevity, the CFL bulb’s only advantage is lower electric current usage; but less electricity usage is essentially irrelevant to a consumer who is being charged 8 to 10 times the replacement cost of an incandescent bulb up front!   There is simply no way that a CFL bulb will cost consumers less money than an incandescent bulb, even factoring in less electrical usage.

But CFL bulbs are “good” for the environment, insist the environmentalists.  They will still use less electricity.  So what if the consumer, the American public, has to spend 8 to 10 times more than they normally would for a light bulb?  CFL bulbs, say the environmentalists, will help reduce pollution because less electricity will need to be generated, thereby reducing the overall “carbon footprint” of each household.

This is the irony we now find ourselves in.  Under the Guise of Safety, we are being duped!   We are being forced to rid our households and businesses of safe, incandescent bulbs made in America with three major brands of CFL bulbs, all of which are made in Chinese factories, and all of which are filled with mercury which silently waits to permanently contaminate our environment…. and all of this in the name of environmental cleanliness and safety!

But give the scientific experts time and maybe they’ll discover that the expensive mercury light bulbs are worse for the environment than what was there before.  Then new laws can be passed making CFLs illegal, just as the gasoline additive MTBE was first required in California, and then banned.The history of MTBE is a farce of regulations and counter-regulations, all supported by science, of course.

Reminds me of future food science.