| Nick gets it so right here.
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.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." |
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.