[Williams]

Apparently the Bush report is full of caveats which the NYT certainly did not emphasize. BUT is global warming really a political issue? Is Rush a scientist who can possibly have an informed opinion as to it's causes? Everything he says about the environmental wackos is true, but still, if there is warming and if it is caused by fossil fuels, all the political huffing and puffing in the world won't change that reality.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Look for several scientific calls on Rush this week. I would expect them.

[colorado tanker]

Go to Rush's links and you will find that the report is not there. Rush didn't read the actual report, but relied on the Times article for his bushwhacking. Here it is: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car

This report is not a policy document, but is bureaucratic exercise required by the Rio treaty where our bureaucracy reports to the UN bureaucracy on global warming. This report supports Bush's present policy, rejects the Kyoto Protocal and reiterates that the science has not been able to tell us if the warming is due primarily to man-made versus natural causes, if the warming is a problem at all or what the magnitude of that problem might be. There is no flip-flop.

The Times piece is a hit-piece spinning the report as some kind of admission the left has been correct on global warming, which it is not, in the hopes of changing policy.

I think Rush spent Sunday on the golf course and relied completely on the Times story for his prep. But it makes good radio - spawned one column today already and who knows how many FR threads.

[altair]

if there is warming and if it is caused by fossil fuels, all the political huffing and puffing in the world won't change that reality.

There is not one shred of scientific evidence to support this. Not one.