U-TURN: BUSH ADMIN OUTLINES 'GLOBAL WARMING' EFFECTS ON AMERICA; ACKNOWLEDGES DAMAGE

Drudge Report ^ | 06/02/2002 | By Drudge

[Libertina]

New Yawk Times It wouldn't be the 1 millionth time they lied, would it?

[Nick Danger]

Nick gets it so right here.

No, I got it wrong. I figured the bureaucrats had sent in a warmed-over version of whatever they turned in last year, and the New York Times was just trying to cause Bush some trouble with it.

But now I've been to the EPA site and read the introduction. No, this is no Clinton holdover. Nor is it what the New York Times says it is. This report has been totally re-worked by Bush's people. Drudge's characterization of it, and the New York Times' as well -- if he is quoting them accurately -- is way off base.

What I saw was an excellent job of using the Greenies' own language to tell them we don't believe the global warming studies, we identify the following deficiencies in them, we're willing to help clear up the mystery, but in the meantime we'll be moving on "clean energy sources like nuclear power" -- ya gotta love the way they phrased that -- and doing absolutely nothing that would hurt our economy, thankyewverymuch. Oh, and while we're at it, we'll be implementing "increased access to federal lands and expedited licensing practices; and expanded use of cleaner fuels, including initiatives for coal and natural gas." That's right, you Greenies are gonna get cleaner fuels... like coal and natural gas. As for Global Warming...

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise. While the changes observed over the last several decades are likely due mostly to human activities, we cannot rule out that some significant part is also a reflection of natural variability.

Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions will require major advances in understanding and modeling of the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the feedback processes that determine the sensitivity of the climate system.

That is a very nice, diplomatic way of telling them that the science has big holes in it, and we don't yet find it convincing. Here they go again:

While current analyses are unable to predict with confidence the timing, magnitude, or regional distribution of climate change, the best scientific information indicates that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase,changes are likely to occur. The U.S. National Research Council has cautioned, however, that "because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." Moreover,there is perhaps even greater uncertainty regarding the social, environmental, and economic consequences of changes in climate.

Does that sound to you like the U.S. has sent in "a climate report to the United Nations detailing 'specific and far-reaching effects' that it says 'global warming will inflict' on the American environment."? That's what Drudge says the New York Times says, but I read the above to say that our position is that no one knows what the effects will be, and that any current claims are "subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)."

If the New York Times goes ahead and prints what Drudge says they will, Christine Todd Whitman ought to call a press conference and denounce them for misleading the American people about what was in the report. "The science is too important to be twisted by the political agenda of the Times, yada yada, and we ask the rest of the media to please tell the American people the truth about what is in this report."

[patriciaruth]

The "Third Way" of American politics is nearly complete.

And what is the Third Way? Politics for those that eat their young? Canabals for Buchanan? Clones for Browne?

[altura]

You must not have gone to the link provided by Didle. It explains that this report has been in the works since the Clinton administration and has not, in fact, come out yet.

[christine]

that's exactly how i see it, jt.

[rintense]

Hehehe. Please be sure and tell me if Rush and Hannity miss the mark on this one.

[sunshine state]

You make an excellent point. Thanks.

[clintonh8r]

I'm glad you were amused. I've seen more knee-jerks tonight than a reflex hammer. Drudge will be gratified that so many people swallow his stuff whole. (I apologize for any untoward mental images created by that last sentence).

[Howlin]

Oh, Joe.......this will just break your heart, I know, but you're a little late to the party, pal.

This Drudge sensation has already been debunked.

Try to get here a little earlier next time!

[ru4liberty]

It will be fun to watch the Bush bashers read the whole article without moving their lips....

Mul, nothing personal but this is hilarious! Sorry to have a laugh at your expense. Well, sorta... ;-)

[swheats]

LOL it could be.

[altura]

But will the New York Times cover her press conference??

Thanx for actually reading the report! Whoa!

And for being fairly successful in understanding bureaucratize. It was starting to make my teeth hurt.

[patriciaruth]

it will sure give the Demoncrats fuel when they have the White House again

And the Democrats will have the White House again because???

a. conservative 2 percenters stay home
b. most of the people on this thread vote for Kerry-Bayh ticket at the next election or Hillary-McKinney in 2008
c. you campaign for Buchanan
d. you write in Rush Limbaugh

[rintense]

I agree. This over reacting crap is getting real old, real fast. And once again, the media- even Drudge- are to blame for reporting only half the facts.

[Torie]

As usual, you get the "A," while the rest of us rest wallow in mediocrity. It is sort of like Mozart versus Solari, or whatever his name is.

[Ol' Sparky]

It's been quite a week for the Clinton, er, Bush Administration. First, this:

The U.S. attorney's office argued yesterday in D.C. Superior Court that the District's ban on handguns should be upheld, brushing aside the Bush administration's new directive that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear firearms.

Then, details about the No Child Left Behind program promoted by Bush, which continues to divide the races and punishes schools solely on the basis of race:

A school's rating under the No Child Left Behind Act hinges on how well the school as a whole, as well as nine ethnic and other groups, perform on standardized tests. Under federal standards:

Each school will pass muster only if every one of its groups makes adequate yearly progress.

A subgroup will "make adequate yearly progress" if the expected percentage of students passes reading and math tests.

Now, this. Can anyone claim Bush is a conservative anymore with a straight face? On most issues, he's doing more damage than Clinton. At least, the Republicans stopped Clinton. Who's going to stop Bush?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

How long do you think it will take for the frothing at the mouth types to climb down from the ceiling now that the Drudge story has turned out to be so much crap, as far as policy is concerned?

[altura]

Someone else is gonna have to help you Sparks ... I'm going to bed.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Excellent work!

Forward this to Rush. You should have his ear by now, your posts make perfect sense. Are you Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, or Peter the Lawyer?!

[CONSERVATIVE ALWAYS]

Arafat Offers Cabinet Posts to Hamas

Arafat Offers Cabinet Posts to Hamas

Arafat Offers Cabinet Posts to Hamas