White House defends U-turn on global warming

Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, June 4, 2002 | By George Archibald

[JohnHuang2]

The White House yesterday defended the about-face on global warming contained in its report to the United Nations on climate change.

The report marked the first Bush administration agreement with environmental activists that recent global warming is caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human use of fossil fuels.

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, June 4, 2002

Quote of the Day by vladog

[goldstategop]

The Administration can try to defend its flip flop all it wants. What it has shown its friends and enemies alike however, is that it can't be depended to take a position and stick to it.

[dts32041]

Now if it came out in favor of the use of Nuclear power plants for cutting down green house gases, might actually start to believe the current occupant of the white house.

[Smokin' Joe]

Basic nonsense. If there were no global warming, (in the past 12000 years), where I live would be under 1000 meters of ice.

Humans roll with the punches and adapt. That is what made us the dominant species on the planet. All the eco-folks are really worried about is control, control, control.

Assuming that there were (hypothetically speaking) anthropogenic global warming, so the temperature goes up. The folks living in cooler areas (Climate zones 3 and 4) would use less fossil fuel for heat.... and produce fewer "greenhouse emissions", and things would sway back.

Increased tree growth would remove CO2 from the atmosphere and tie it up in plant matter.

If biodiversity is the object, why not a warmer climate? Wouldn't this increase the potential for rain-forest quality habitat? Temperate zone expansion could alleviate some of the ecological pressure on current human habitat and allow more agriculture.

But... there is no data which shows a definite correlation between anthropogenic emissions and climate, or the planet would have warmed significantly during the industrial revolution, not now when we are curbing emissions.

The call for emissions reduction would be universal and have universal standards instead of reeking of the socialist level playing field (you have more so you have to meet a higher standard).

No, this is not science, (or the solutions would be scientific, not political). It is socialist power politics, pure and simple, and the administration d@mned foolish to let the adversary define the debate.

[pariah]

The Administration ... can't be depended to take a position and stick to it.

I think the Administration is stuck with a report that was in the making long before Bush assumed office. Throwing a sop to the environmentalists, while pulling out of Kyoto and pushing for voluntary efforts is just smart politics.
(Now if you bring up immigration, I just might have to concede your point...)

[pariah]

If biodiversity is the object, why not a warmer climate?

If scientists prove successful at clonging extinct species, and if a warming trend continues, I wonder what the chances are of a real Jurrasic Park someday, maybe in the FL everglades? Might run Disneyworld right out of business!

[Smokin' Joe]

There have been several Mamallian macrofaunas present on the North American continent since the dinosaurs. All of them contained their superpredators.

If you think street gangs and crack dealers are bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

These critters might make the li'l ol' Kodiak bear seem like a wuss. No doubt some twit would want to release them in the hinterlands, but any good predator goes where the easy groceries are.....

[ChasingFletch]

"a real Jurrasic Park"......

Gore W. Bush can visit the fauna and animals there with Laura in his post-Presidential years. Maybe we can have a nice jogging trail included there (with oxygen cannisters along the trail) named after G.W. Or is it Gore-ge W. Bush?

[ChasingFletch]

"If scientists prove successful at clonging extinct species"........those darn clonging scientists! Just kidding!

I have been raising groundcover (pachysandra) in an outdoor Nursery in Western Pennsylvania for 20 years. I am liking the slightly warmer winters and the increase in FREE water. We have been averaging about 5 more inches of rain per year for the past decade. The warming .......... is cool!

[oldvike]

This makes no sense. Yesterday the Bushbots were telling us all that the administration never conceded that global warming was caused by humans and now we have an article where the administration is defending the very thing that the Bushbots said did not happen. Very confusing.

[buaya]

Being the cynic and misanthrope that I am, I can only conclude that Dubya's business buddies have begun to appreciate the enormous profit potential that global warming presents.

Whereas the Algore democrats wanted us all to get by with less (ie, lower our standard of living), the pro-business republicans realize that they can make a killing by replacing all of the older, dirty, electric power plants with brand-new, clean, efficient, new ones. I vaguely remember reading about an Enron internal memo which explored this very scenario.

And imagine if the gov't mandates that all motor vehicles on the road today be replaced with new electric/gas hybrids within the next five years. Detroit will be in hog-heaven.

Those invested in certain industries will make a killing. Lots of middle class folks who are employed by these industries will also benefit. Unfortunately, the rest of us will pick up the tab for this latest gov't "full employment act." But then again, I'm a cynic.

[Elsie]

but any good predator goes where the easy groceries are.....

---

HEY!!!!!!!!!

Is this some backhand slap on our wonderful Welfare State?

---

If so, then let me be the first to extend a nationwide invitation:

Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson is going to 'eliminate' the homeless in Circle City.

http://www.indystar.com/article.php?eletpeterson24.html

[rightwing2]

Actually, the funny thing is that the Bush Administration is reverting its original position which the President expressed during the campaign when he belatedly announced in 1999 that for the first time he believed that global warning was a major threat to the US. So at least unlike the Bush breaking of his campaign pledge ("read my lips, no new campaign finance reform") not to sign the Democrat Congressional Majority Insurance Bill which will bring a swift and permanent end to the GOP Congressional majority once it takes effect in the 2004 election cycle, this is actually a case of "promises made, promises kept." I do think however, that Bush will pay a heavy price for betraying the Republican Party and ensuring the electoral defeat of scores of his loyal Republican supporters in Congress when conservatives desert him en masse in the 2004 election in favor of a real conservative.

[Askel5]

Actually, the funny thing is that the Bush Administration is reverting its original position which the President expressed during the campaign when he belatedly announced in 1999 that for the first time he believed that global warning was a major threat to the US.

YES!

I'm so happy someone around here still has a functioning memory!! Indeed he did. In fact, he specifically said that "after consulting with my advisors ... I think there is something to global warming"

(I've tried several searches but can't find *any* "global+warming" articles prior to 2002 as yet.

[Ben Ficklin]

Let me see if I can clear up some of your confusion.

When the Prez formulates and implements policy, it is important that it be based on sound science. Otherwise, it won't withstand a legal challenge. He can't just say: this is what I think about climate change, therefore I am going to do such and such. The sources of the science have to be recognized by the courts.

Although the EPA Climate report contains some phrases that none of us like, it also contains the "natural variability" phrase. The National Acadamy of Science Climate Report also contains that phrase. The NAS report is the authority that Bush has used thus far and I would certainly not speculate as to which report Bush might rely more, or less, on in developing policy. I will remind you that when Bush developed his Klamath Basin water policies earlier this year, he relied exclusively on NAS and ignored all reports created by federal agencies. It is not likely that he will totally abandon the NAS Climate Report. It is also not likely that he will sign Kyoto.

As one of the more strident Bush detractors, you fail to comprehend that Bush is pro business and in favor of States' rights/local control. Whatever set of numbers he has to work with, he will always be that way and his policy will reflect that.

[VRWC_minion]

Posted by VRWC_minion to Pokey78
On News/Activism ^ Jun 4 10:25 AM #112 of 116 ^

Sorry folks. Like it or not we lost the debate regarding whether global warming exists. The average person believes it to be so.

The problem with the existing terms of debate for both conservatives and liberals is we always missed the logical fallacy that the environuts were passing off. Namely that the Globe is warming THEREFORE we must sign Kyoto treaty.

Bush's approach on this put the debate against signing the treaty on much better footing that the old construct. It basically says OK so if global warming is caused by the minor amounts of man's actions what possible changes can man make (given that we have hundred years of carbon release) that would reverse the trend ? Its impossible to prove even with logical fallacies that anything will reverse the trend short of a complete ban on all releases.

But we must do something cry the environuts. Yes, Bush says we will study on how best to adapt to the coming changes. And oh yes, we conservatives will need to employ you scientists who have formerly worked for the environuts to come up with recommendations as to how best to adapt.

Bush has accepted that we lost the first argument but has retreated to a firmer place and at the same time has opened the opportunity to hire away the paid scientific shills.

[VRWC_minion]

For what its worth department. Which republican president signed the treaty to eliminate ozone depleting chemicals ?

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yes, folks Ronald Reagan. Shocking.