Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LIMBAUGH RIPS BUSH WHITE HOUSE OVER GLOBAL WARMING 'FLIP-FLOP'
Drudge Report ^ | 6/3/02 | Matt Drudge

Posted on 06/03/2002 10:04:46 AM PDT by hchutch

Just the headline


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; drudge; limbaugh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,341-1,348 next last
To: jbstrick
Why are you so surprised? Just do an overview of what bush has done in his time in office. He has spent BILLIONS. He has embraced the dem's programs. I know longer expect him to pursue any conservative agenda. He may throw us a "nugget" now and then, but, he is a liberal through and though.
61 posted on 06/03/2002 10:33:35 AM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rintense
It sure sounds to me like he is ripping into him. Before I even found this thread, I had commented to a friend that Rush is really letting Bush have it.

At the risk of turning into Joe Lieberman here, I am very troubled by some of the moves Bush is making. They just seem to me to be senseless abdications of conservative views he always proported previously.

I am not about to join in with the cacaphony that sees no difference between Bush and Gore or who can't see all of the good which Bush has accomplished. I can't and won't ignore that the government is recognizing for the first time in 60 odd years that the 2nd amendment actually says what it says regarding the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. I won't forget that he got through a tax cut. I like the judges he has nominated, and I am thrilled that he nixed Kyoto, rejected the UN small arms conference, and has at several turns thwarted the advancement of abortion via UN auspices.

At the same time, I can't ignore the capitulation on campaign finance, I won't ignore that he abandoned the good portions of his education proposals and accepted the crap portions that Kennedy was pushing for, and I can't pretend that he didn't just have the government tell the UN that everything we have rejected about global warming actually has credence, despite the total lack of anything but junk science backing it.

For me, Bush is going to have to have some stars come into alignment and make some changes or I am going to become a very harsh and vocal critic. We better have a tremendous showing in November, hold the House and reclaim the Senate, and then follow it with Bush taking a strong turn to the right afterwards.

If that doesn't happen, it is going to be very hard for me to say that his presidency has been a successful one for conservatives.

62 posted on 06/03/2002 10:33:43 AM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I guess I should have also mentioned that Rush said that, as usual, the useful media idiots will be there to help Congress use this against the President when they start calling for their little "investigation."
63 posted on 06/03/2002 10:34:28 AM PDT by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Kwilliams
Drudge must be on something...........the emphasis is not correct......slamming did not occur........Matt's hysterical headline from last night was totally out of context and he is using Rush to bolster his own credibility.

Folks, it's time to move away from reacting to everything printed in the mainstream newsrags.

Lately, even NewsMax has taken to totally misleading headlines for their articles. I guess readership and viewership is down so desperate measures are being taken to get our attention.

64 posted on 06/03/2002 10:34:28 AM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Could you please email a copy of the report to Rush? I swear I'm getting tired of all this negativism. My 82 year old mother listens to Rush and believes everything he says. When I get home in the evenings, she's knocking on my door nearly screaming "did you listen to Rush today?" Then I have to explain "the rest of the story:"

But while the report says the United States will be substantially changed in the next few decades — "very likely" seeing the disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes, for example — it does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases.
~ Climate Action Report 2002

65 posted on 06/03/2002 10:35:35 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
The report if anyone is interested........

Climate Action Report 2002

The United States of America's Third National
Communication Under the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change


FINAL VERSION
Hard copies of this report will not be published for several months. Ordering information will be available on this page once copies are available.


(Per Federal Register Notice)

(Public Comments Submitted)


Get Acrobat ReaderAll files listed in the Table of Contents are available for viewing or download in Adobe Acrobat 5.0 format. The Acrobat Reader is available at no cost from Adobe Systems.Exit EPA


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Upfront (247k pdf)  – Cover page and table of contents.

Chapter 1.  Introduction and Overview (197k pdf) – Summarizes the main elements of the report.

Chapter 2.  National Circumstances (450k pdf) – Presents a snapshot of the national characteristics of the United States that play a role in climate change, including the country's climate, geography, economy, demographic trends, energy production and consumption, and natural resources.

Chapter 3.  Greenhouse Gas Inventory (442k pdf) – Provides a broad overview of all U.S. greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks, introduces key concepts, and discusses the primary drivers for the growth in emissions.  All material in the chapter is drawn from the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:  1990–1999

Chapter 4.  Policies and Measures (320k pdf) – Reviews national policies to limit emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases undertaken since 1990.

Chapter 5.  Projections (322k pdf) – Quantifies the aggregate effects on greenhouse gas emissions of policies and measures implemented or planned from 1990 to 2020.

Chapter 6.  Vulnerability (1.5M pdf) – Addresses U.S. vulnerabilities to the adverse consequences of climate change and identifies the most promising adaptation measures being explored. The U.S. Global Change Research Program website features an HTML version of this chapterExit EPA enhanced with extensive hyperlinks to related documents and sites.

Chapter 7.  Financial Resources (426k pdf) – Reviews U.S. efforts with other countries to assist with mitigation and sequestration strategies, build human and institutional capacity to address climate change, and facilitate the commercial transfer of technology.

Chapter 8.  Research and Observation (296k pdf) – Discusses research efforts involving prediction of climate change, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation and new technologies.  This chapter also provides an overview of U.S. work on Global Climate Observing Systems.Exit EPA

Chapter 9.  Education, Training, and Awareness (269k pdf) – Addresses programs to educate and train students and citizens in areas related to climate change and reviews U.S. outreach activities to disseminate information about global climate change.

Appendix A:  Emission Trends. (1.9M pdf)

Appendix B:  Policies and Measures. (1.5M pdf)

Appendix C:  Selected Technology Transfer Activities and U.S. Direct Financial Contributions and Commercial Sales Related to Implementation of the UNFCCC. (4.4M pdf)

Appendix D:  Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. (264k pdf)

Appendix E:  Bibliography. (197k pdf)


http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/nwinsite.html
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/national/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/index.html

Home || Publications || GHG Emissions
Site Map || Glossary || Search || Comments || US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html
Last Updated on June 3, 2002

**********************

The NYT article from which drudge blasted his headline of last night,....

The New York Times | 06/03/2002 | ANDREW C. REVKIN

Posted on 6/2/02 9:47 PM Central by Pokey78

In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment.

In the report, the administration for the first time mostly blames human actions for recent global warming. It says the main culprit is the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

But while the report says the United States will be substantially changed in the next few decades — "very likely" seeing the disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes, for example — it does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases.

It recommends adapting to inevitable changes. It does not recommend making rapid reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming, the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries that have accepted the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treaty written in the Clinton administration that was rejected by Mr. Bush.

The new document, "U.S. Climate Action Report 2002," strongly concludes that no matter what is done to cut emissions in the future, nothing can be done about the environmental consequences of several decades' worth of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere.

Its emphasis on adapting to the inevitable fits in neatly with the climate plan Mr. Bush announced in February. He called for voluntary measures that would allow gas emissions to continue to rise, with the goal of slowing the rate of growth.

Yet the new report's predictions present a sharp contrast to previous statements on climate change by the administration, which has always spoken in generalities and emphasized the need for much more research to resolve scientific questions.

The report, in fact, puts a substantial distance between the administration and companies that produce or, like automakers, depend on fossil fuels. Many companies and trade groups have continued to run publicity and lobbying campaigns questioning the validity of the science pointing to damaging results of global warming.

The distancing could be an effort to rebuild Mr. Bush's environmental credentials after a bruising stretch of defeats on stances that favor energy production over conservation, notably the failure to win a Senate vote opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploratory oil drilling.

But the report has alienated environmentalists, too. Late last week, after it was posted on the Web site of the Environmental Protection Agency, private environmental groups pounced on it, saying it pointed to a jarring disconnect between the administration's findings on the climate problem and its proposed solutions.

"The Bush administration now admits that global warming will change America's most unique wild places and wildlife forever," said Mark Van Putten, the president of the National Wildlife Federation, a private environmental group. "How can it acknowledge global warming is a disaster in the making and then refuse to help solve the problem, especially when solutions are so clear?"

Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, said, "It is important to move forward on the president's strategies for addressing the challenge of climate change, and that's what we're continuing to do."

Many companies and trade groups had sought last year to tone down parts of the report, the third prepared by the United States under the requirements of a 1992 climate treaty but the first under President Bush.

For the most part, the document does not reflect industry's wishes, which were conveyed in letters during a period of public comment on a draft last year.

The report emphasizes that global warming carries potential benefits for the nation, including increased agricultural and forest growth from longer growing seasons, and from more rainfall and carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.

But it says environmental havoc is coming as well. "Some of the goods and services lost through the disappearance or fragmentation of natural ecosystems are likely to be costly or impossible to replace," the report says.

The report also warns of the substantial disruption of snow-fed water supplies, the loss of coastal and mountain ecosystems and more frequent heat waves. "A few ecosystems, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely in some areas," it says. "Other ecosystems, such as Southeastern forests, are likely to experience major species shifts or break up into a mosaic of grasslands, woodlands and forests."

Despite arguments by oil industry groups that the evidence is not yet clear, the report unambiguously states that humans are the likely cause of most of the recent warming. Phrases were adopted wholesale from a National Academy of Sciences climate study, which was requested last spring by the White House and concluded that the warming was a serious problem.

A government official familiar with the new report said that it had been under review at the White House from January until mid-April, but that few substantive changes were made.

Without a news release or announcement, the new report was shipped last week to the United Nations offices that administer the treaty and posted on the Web (www.epa .gov/globalwarming/publications /car/).

A senior administration official involved in climate policy played down the significance of the report, explaining that policies on emissions or international treaties would not change as a result.

Global warming has become a significant, if second-tier, political issue recently, particularly since James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent, became chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year. Mr. Jeffords has criticized the president's policy.

The new report is the latest in a series on greenhouse gases, climate research, energy policies and related matters that are required of signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was signed by Mr. Bush's father and ratified by the Senate.

The convention lacks binding obligations to reduce gas emissions like those in the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Bush and administration officials had previously been careful to avoid specifics and couch their views on coming climate shifts with substantial caveats. The president and his aides often described climate change as a "serious issue," but rarely as a serious problem.

The report contains some caveats of its own, but states that the warming trend has been under way for several decades and is likely to continue.

"Because of the momentum in the climate system and natural climate variability, adapting to a changing climate is inevitable," the report says. "The question is whether we adapt poorly or well."

Several industry groups said the qualifications in parts of the report were welcome, but added that the overall message was still more dire than the facts justified and would confuse policy makers.

Dr. Russell O. Jones, a senior economist for the American Petroleum Institute who wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency a year ago seeking to purge projections of specific environmental impacts from the report, said it was "frustrating" to see that they remained.

"Adding the caveats is useful, but the results are still as meaningless," Dr. Jones said.


66 posted on 06/03/2002 10:36:34 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dales
I agree completely with your post. Thank you for stating the case so eloquently.
67 posted on 06/03/2002 10:36:54 AM PDT by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: oldvike
And he is!!!!!!!!!
68 posted on 06/03/2002 10:37:54 AM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: zook
To add one more thing, I'd say that Rush, since his hearing problem, has become extremely one-dimensional in his thinking.

I thought I was the only one that had noticed this .. thanks for posting this

69 posted on 06/03/2002 10:38:12 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I agree: Newsmax's headline on Condi Rice supposedly knowing about the attacks pre-September 11 was one exmaple of horrid irresponsibility.

I stopped surfing World Net Daily about a year ago because I was offended by their often ill-founded headlines. Newsmax and Drudge are in the running to be next. And I've already axed the Rush Limbaugh program, at least until Rush gets out of this dumb streak he's in.

If I want to see what is happening in the world, I come to FR. Free analysis by thoughtful conservatives, among others.

70 posted on 06/03/2002 10:38:27 AM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: zook
#18:
"Maybe human activity *is* contributing to atmospheric warming. Maybe there is some good science on this. Maybe the administration has weighed the evidence and decided that this is a reasonable position to take."

Holy jumping siht.

The GOP is over.

Way, way over...

71 posted on 06/03/2002 10:38:35 AM PDT by Jethro Tull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Grrrrr...... ;-)
72 posted on 06/03/2002 10:38:46 AM PDT by oldvike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Kyoto Paradox I:
Climate is an extremely complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear, time-dependent system
with massive, external, naturally-occuring inputs and wide variability in measurables.

Therefore,
To say we can control it by tweaking a small set of factors is ridiculous on its face.

Kyoto Paradox II:
Climate is an extremely complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear, time-dependent system
with massive, external, naturally-occuring inputs and wide variability in measurables.

Therefore,
You can no more successfully predict the outcome of doing something than you can of
not doing something. In other words, the impact of trying to "fix" a climate problem
is as unpredictable as the impact of ignoring it.
73 posted on 06/03/2002 10:38:58 AM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dales
Have you read the report? It is obvious the New York Times has and has put their spin on it, which is wrong, if not outright lying. In addition, Drudge and Rush are both depending on the New York Times interpretation, which is WRONG!!
74 posted on 06/03/2002 10:39:58 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
LOL .. good point ..
75 posted on 06/03/2002 10:39:58 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Rush is no longer Leader of the Opposition and hence THE man on the Right.Bush has eclipsed him, plus he has to come up with new material everyday in dissecting an Administration that isn't process driven like the Clintons.That one provided daily fodder because of its very M.O., but when faced with a guy that takes a "long view", well not everyone can see that "long view" as well as the guy setting it :-)Rush is without a compass and he's flailing about.
76 posted on 06/03/2002 10:41:59 AM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I dunno I am listening and have been since Rush started and he IS ripping Bush.

Rush even said Bush is now OFFICIALLY in writing confirming what the anti capitalist environmentalist whackos have been saying all along!

Bush needs to go in order to promote a conservative agenda.

Had I voted for Al Gore would he have tried to gain conservative support by giving in on so many conservative issues?

We have ripped McCain for much much, much, much less!

77 posted on 06/03/2002 10:42:06 AM PDT by Kay Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jethro Tull
welcome to the awakening, respectfully. this has been afoot for decades. either you are for individual liberty and all it implies, as an absolute, or you are a statist and all IT implies, as an absolute.

now, tell as many as will listen. freedom is absolute, period.

78 posted on 06/03/2002 10:42:11 AM PDT by galt-jw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
I noticed it, too. I hope it is just a coincidence, not a result of the health problem/surgery. Then there would be hope that Rush will pull out of this dumb streak.
79 posted on 06/03/2002 10:42:18 AM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: hchutch;all
You people were warned that Bush was nothing but another Third Way Socialist........
80 posted on 06/03/2002 10:43:50 AM PDT by S.O.S121.500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,341-1,348 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson