Global Warming 2

Dave,
I see that you have subscribed to the notion that “all is well” and we have
nothing to fear but fear itself, So we can go right ahead and be the most
wasteful economy on earth, completely uncaring about the consequences of out
actions.

How the hell did you get that from what I wrote.  There is a ground between the sky is falling camp  and the let’s party all night till we puke.  I am in neither camp.  I said “should we reduce CO2” and I answered “yes”.  Should we reduce it because it might have an affect on a possible phenomenon popularly called Global Warming that may or may not exist and if it does exists is caused more by cow farts than it is by SUV’s running wild across the plains.   That is what the UN report on Climate Change reported last month.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A

Hell, why not leave the health of out planet to future generations just like
we are leaving Bush’s deficit to them while his fat cat constituents
continue to get richer and richer.

Oh I see that your opinion is clouded with hatred for Bush and not with actual facts.  That seems to be the typical response from those that view the Climate “debate” as one between the Religion of Climate and the pagan unbelievers, disbelievers and agnostics.  I am an Agnostic in this debate.

As to the “deficit” you might want to take a minute to review the actual numbers.

Forecast published in 2004.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=2and (updated with real 2006 numbers)

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7731&sequence=0#sum

I think the Congressional Budget Office clearly shows that the deficit is in marked decline.  Did it shoot up when Bush first came into office?  Uh, yeah.  Was there a little hiccup to the US Economy called 9/11.  Duh.

The Deficit in 2003 was $375 Billion.  The deficit last year was $248 Billion (down from the $269 previously forecasted and for 2007 the new forecast is $172 Billion (again down from the previous forecast of ($267 Billion).  Seems to me that the Budget Deficit numbers are headed down not up or even staying the same.  Additionally the percent of GDP that the deficit consumes has dropped from 3.5% to 1.3%.

Pretty amazing to pull that off while spending like a “drunken sailor” fighting a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, increasing spending on Medicare and other entitlement programs.  Bush has never met a budget that he would veto for overspending.  That has been a huge failure on his part.

That is the sort of thinking that the Bush administration has hired hacks to
propagate and that has caused the scientific community to leave government
service in droves.

Again you use the same false logic.  You seem to base your opinion on the premise that anything the “other side” does must be bad, horrible and nefarious while your side is full of light and sunshine.  Sorry the world does not really work that way.

Your numbers on decreasing employment of Scientists in government jobs is just as wrong as your statement about the deficit.

http://pubs.acs.org/chemjobs/jobseeker/articles/2003fedbudget.html

“…Basic research in FY03 would grow 8.5% or $2.0 billion to $25.5 billion. Basic research at NIH would go up nearly 10% because of a new emphasis on applied research on cancer and bioterrorism…”

and

“…So what does the new budget mean for scientists and federal employment? Well, the greatest opportunities are to be found in health-related jobs and in nanotechnology to improve our competitiveness in science and technology…”

Federal R&D in 1994 was $69,451 billion.  In 2004 that number had grown to $109,717 Billion.  A 4.1% growth rate year to year.  In 2005 it was $131,259 Billion, in 2006 it was 135,205 Billion and for 2007 it is budgeted to be $136,850 Billion.

Federal employment of Scientists and Engineers
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/fedworkforce/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05304/tables/tab2.xls
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/s1493/table1.htm

1989    185,623
1990    189,049
1991    194,726
1992    198,853
1993    196,908
1994    ??
1995    ??
1996    ??
1997    ??
1998    189,713
1999    186,891
2000    187,396
2001    193,448
2002    206,182

Looks like the only time employment went down for federal employment of Scientists was under Clinton from 1992 to 2000 with fewer Scientist employed in 2000 than had been when he took office in 1992.  Employment under Bush has skyrocketed by comparison.

Interesting that I could find no data covering the heart of the Clinton years (he must have cut funding for some basic research hehe…)

While at the same time US colleges are graduating record numbers of Science Doctorates.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07301/

A 10% increase between 2001 and 2005.  Those graduates have to go some place and with the increase in Federal Spending on R&D I can think of at least one place they can send their resumes and transcripts to.

It is all too self-serving.