The example that the President cited in your quote above was of our efforts to **reduce** some pollution that actually increased global warming.
A clever person might catch on that GWB slammed the Green movement by citing that example.
Posted on 11/09/2005 2:11:49 PM PST by MAKnight
does not equal
"President Bush has fairly consistently said that human activity has a detrimental impact on climate."
My read of President Bush's talk from 2001 is an admission that human activity impacts the environment, and tha he is committed to US reduction in emissions in order to counter that.
Of course, you are free to disagree with that - and if you do, I think you're propagandizing, not illuminating.
The example that the President cited in your quote above was of our efforts to **reduce** some pollution that actually increased global warming.
A clever person might catch on that GWB slammed the Green movement by citing that example.
Although...I wish to hell the REPUBLICAN led Senate and the REPUBLICAN led Congress would get off their asses and do something about the friggin tax code. Until we rid ourselves of that slavery, everything else is moot.
Doesn't alter the larger point Bush was making, which is that human activity, according to him, was contributing to the alleged problem of climate change. How else would a "clever" person interpret this part?:
The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.There are only two ways to stabilize concentration of greenhouse gases. One is to avoid emitting them in the first place; the other is to try to capture them after they're created. And there are problems with both approaches. We're making great progress through technology, but have not yet developed cost-effective ways to capture carbon emissions at their source; although there is some promising work that is being done.
An honest read of the speech, and perhaps even checking the link to see what else was said, would include a discussion of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, that trap heat, and thus warm the earth; as well as two major pollutants that have an impact on warming: black soot and tropospheric ozone.
And to pull out the fact that increased sulphur emission would cause cooling, or that maybe we shouldn't be reducing sulphur emissions, well, I dunno, maybe we shouldn't be reducing sulphur emissions. Is President Bush advocating increasing sulphur emissions? That sure would reduce the cost of diesel production, as well as coal stack scrubbing.
What's that? Sulphur emissions cause acid rain? Oh bother, I guess that could be a detrimental impact on climate too.
Did you check out The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate?
You'll see that the President uses words such as "uncertainties" and "limits" to indicate that this is not settled science.
In contrast, you claimed that he was proselytizing the Left's view that human activity **does** cause global warming.
Yes, it can be both. From what I have observed, there is a wide range of views expressed here. Republicans can not be be defined by one definition. The Republican party is made up of individual people, with individual opinions that have varying degrees of "conservativeness" (is that even a word? LOL).
Karen Hughes needs to replace Andy Card as Chief of Staff.
And if you pay closer attention, you'll see that the only "uncertainties" he's talking about are the precise remedies for the alleged problem, not the notion that the problem exists in the first place.
No. He clearly leaves open the possibility that non-human activity could also be a cause.
He does not dispute that we've had a .6 degree warming trend. That it comes from the Sun or cloud cover or Man is unsettled.
That is beside the point that you challenged. Which, to refresh your memory, was "President Bush has fairly consistently said that human activity has a detrimental impact on climate."
Nobody here has said that human activity was the ONLY input. And if President Bush holds that CO2 emission by human activity doesn't have a detrimantal impact, then why was he expressing a commitment to legislating reduction in its emission?
Your graphic is nice, but a complete waste of bandwidth which is an expense for FR( the FR supporters ). Displaying it once in a thread would be nice.
Who appoints the AG.?.. and almost all other federal judges.. Not even a wimper from the White House.. even a sniff.. Bergers crime is huge.. He don't get off that easy bucko.. Bush could raise hell.. The Berger thing is a battle worth winning.. What else is going on?.. obviously Bergers crime is no big deal.. Bush is a freepin COWARD.. hes not just smart hes scart... Scared of being exposed as a damned RINO like his dad and brother.. I could take a beating myself for a MAN I trust and have, but not for a damned coward..
Wow. When you put it in perspective like that, it's impressive.
Bookmark.
I agree with you 100%.
Tons of conseratives agree with you 100%.
Bewildering and outraged are too kind. This is a nightmare. What in God's name is Bush doing to our party and our cause?
Bumpbot
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.