Results from GOP inquiry on Climategate

I don't have data on the demographics of specific effects. We know that lead causes damage and that essentially all US kids were sufficiently exposed to have been harmed by it.

OK, back to topic: it's those brain damaged people who are preventing us from doing anything meaningful about global warming. We're gonna have to wait for them to die or until some effect so bad and obvious happens that even they can't ignore or deny it. Yep, we're screwed.

 

Mojo: "Today Goldman Sachs ,Morgan Stanley,and the nuke industry are the biggest lobbyists pro AGW."

If that is indeed the case, they seem to currently be wasting their money. The banks I mean. The nuke industry might be investing more wisely? Wiki pedia

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies]Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

says that from 1973 to 2003, nuclear R&D subsidies were $50 billion and fossil fuel subsidies $24 billion. I wouldn't assert that a nuclear subsidy is good or bad, but I wonder if the FF industry could possibly manage with, say, $788 millions per year instead of $800 millions?

Because I have a plan for the $12 million difference - that is to refund the defunded US IPCC annual payment. AustinG thinks that defunding is not troubling, but I disagree. Assuming that IPCC can continue w/o US funding, what if the next IPCC assessment makes as strong or stronger statement sthan the previous 4? Would no denier refer to it as "the US-discredited IPCC"? (in fact I expect to read that phrase much sooner if the Senate does not reverse House vote)

Yeah I know $12 million is a lot of money, but maybe the IPCC could squeeze by with a bit less. Actually their budget document

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session29/doc3.pdf

suggests that the US contrib has been more on the order of $2.5 million per year. The table I refer to (page 4) is enumerated in Swiss francs but they are nearly on par with $USD.

So there's my plan - transfer about 3 millionths of the total federal budget from fossil fuel subsidies to IPCC subsidies. Or maybe just 1 millionth?

 

IMHO removing energy subsidies except for some small cases would be a good thing. But we have a huge deficit, do we really need to spend this money somewhere else?

I don't think inhofe's criticism of AGW will intensify if the us doesn't fund IPCC. Its hard to out do flying to Copenhagen and declaring global warming a hoax. For most of us that read the research the IPCC doesn't really matter, the evidence shows AGW.

If its that small the European's should be able to pick up the tab. And while we are cutting subsidies lets get to some of those farm subsidies too, and military spending. Lots of waste fraud and abuse

 

OK then, substantially reduce subsidies and spend a little of the money saved on other things. There are probably several good candidate things, but I speak of only one here.

But alas the subsidies exist because of well-funded lobbying. I hope tha's not too simplistic a viewpoint, but it's all I have for now. We can perhaps conclude that lobbying if any on behalf of IPCC funding has not been effective. This is along the lines of the 'AGW' lobbying efforts reported by mojo above, which have not been spectacular successes either.

Or have they? A large chunk of US funding on earth system sciences launches NASA satellites. Glory is supposed to go from Vandenburg today. Yay!

I was not going to talk about waste fraud or abuse in military programs, in part because one has to go to the pages of Vanity Fair to read about pallets of US currency gone missing in Iraq. So I won't

I agree that balancing the budget should be a very high goal. But I can't imagine how to do it without expanding the US manufacturing (especially export) base, and being, um, as selective as possible about declaring wars. Gosh those puppies are expensive.

I have opined elsewhere that expanding the manufacturing of high-efficiency and renewable-enegy technologies sems like good choices, given that the cheap fossil fuels are limited and generally located outside the US. If somebody does not do a lot of that during the next few decades I (at least) will be very surprised.

However, to the extent that the US turns its back on the science of carbon (so to speak) it probably makes it more likely that some other country will get filthy stinking rich in that way. But being not a Senator from Oklahoma, who'd listen to little ol' me?

Only this kindly group at PriusChat who seem to have too much spare time. Like me.

 

It really isn't that much money. $12 million wouldn't purchase the 2,300 acre ranch (just open land) we were trying to preserve in Auburn,Ca. We came up with $9.5 million and bought everything but the high development potential parcel. Has anyone priced out single family homes in Davis lately?

Hell, Target's fines $22.5mill) for their recent environmental fiasco in the Monterrey are could almost double the IPCC budget.

 

Let me make an opinion that is odd. The IPCC way of funding science is only going to create problems. Having a political body (the UN) sponsoring a science organization whose results are used, or attacked, for political/social/economic initiatives eventually makes for funding problems. The present thread is just one example.

The better way is to have the responsible organization be a completely science based organization like CERN. Harder to set up, but more independent and financially stable.

 

I might as well finish this.

Bottom line: Estimates vary, but:
Everyone agrees that lead lowers IQ.
There is good agreement that the effect is non-linear: The first 10 ug/dl has a larger impact on IQ than the next 10, and so on.
A reasonable estimate for the average impact over a broad range of lead poisoning levels is about 3.5 IQ points for every 10 ug/dl.
Estimates vary, however, eg:

A rationale for lowering the blood lead action level from 10 to 2

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program | PLYC 91 Chp 2 | CDC

MMS: Error

The most important point is that the first 10 ug/dl -- the amount that more than 80% of 1970s school age children had in their blood -- the best estimate is that reduced IQ by more than 6 points.

From the Federal Register, emphasis mine:
http://www.lewcorp.com/r&r.pdf

"The overall weight of the available
evidence provides clear substantiation
of neurocognitive decrements being
associated in young children with blood
lead concentrations in the range of 5–10
micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL), and
possibly somewhat lower. Some newly
available analyses appear to show lead
effects on the intellectual attainment of
preschool and school age children at
population mean concurrent blood-lead
levels ranging down to as low as 2 to 8
μg/dL.A decline of 6.2 points in full
scale IQ for an increase in concurrent
blood lead levels from 1 to 10 μg/dL has
been estimated, based on a pooled
analysis of results derived from seven
well-conducted prospective
epidemiologic studies (Ref. 1, at E-9)."

Whether or not you think IQ tests have much accuracy on average, 6 IQ points is a huge difference. Across nations, that's roughly the difference between the highest scores and the average, taking these at face value:
IQ and the Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Across US states, there are only estimates of IQ based on standardized tests (at least, as far as I can tell). Taking those at face value, 6 points spans the difference between the lowest (Mississippi) and the US average. Although you'll see other listings that may differ significantly from this one.
IQ averages in US States - best estimate available

So, in some sense, we have an entire Mississippi-like US generation, those who were infants and young children in the 1970s, and it's a good guess that my generation (infants and young children in the 1960s) got a pretty good dose as well.

People always seem to think I'm kidding when I say we have an entire generation of stupider-than-average people, thanks to leaded gasoline. But I'm quite serious. It was, in hindsight, one of the greatest environmental blunders of the 20th century. But, because nobody died, and the effects were subtle, and many of us lived through it, it doesn't get much attention.

I think that goes a long way toward explaining the dumbing-down of public life in the US over the past 30 years. The government matches its people. We get the government we deserve.

 

Although I totally agree with the analysis that some environmental lead reduces intellengence on average, your analysis fails to look at iq scores in the total population at all and other factors. If you look at the flynn affect the average iq has been rising at an average of 3 points per decade. I do not know if this has been analyzed lately in the united states, but contrary to your hypothesis, average iqs rose in the time periods that you are predicting falls.

With a 2 party system giving us tweetle dum and tweetle dummer, gerrymandered so that most congressional seats go either to the incombant or the choice of their party, I'm not sure how you can blame the government on less intelligent people.

 

Study links children's lead levels, SAT scores - USATODAY.com

Trends in preschool lead exposure, mental retardat... [Environ Res. 2009] - PubMed result

Effects of early childhood lead exposure on academ... [Arch Dis Child. 2009] - PubMed result

The relationship between early childhood blood lea... [Environ Health Perspect. 2007] - PubMed result

 

Thank you for the information. From the partial readings it appears that most research does point to regional differences with strong evidence of lead based paint and leaded glass with strong contributions as well as emissions. IMHO 6 IQ points is a great over estimation, and if drops this large had occured there would be numerous papers about the drop. SAT scores are only a partial proxy as the makeup of test takers and the teaching methods very so much. The USA today article attributed 1/2 of the SAT scores from one resercher, but I was unable to follow the link to see how he accounted for other factors in in the multivariate analysis.

Far better analysis has been done. McDaniel's methods is not complete but is much better than raw SAT scores
Average IQ Score by State

This does have California near the bottom of the list. California politicians have blamed immigration, but environmental lead and other pollutants in LA might help explain it better.

If we look at the graph and take the study at face value I really don't see a huge drop in IQ. I may be reading it wrong. But then we need to question how important IQ is to our politicians. I don't have congressional information but

W has a higher IQ then Regan, Kenedy and Lincoln did. Was he a better president?

Clinton's IQ is higher than W's, but Nixon beat Clinton by a similar measure. I would say Nixon was the worse of this bunch and you can not tell very much about a politician by iq alone, that is if it is above a low level. Some of our worst presidents had the highest IQ.

I have no idea how smart inhofe is, but any way you cut it, I don't think he is good for the country.

 

The dumbing of America by lead is an interesting hypothesis, but I do not buy it unless multiple studies from other countries show the same effect.