Replies

It is my belief that the NYT's report on June 3rd will focus on language used in chapters 5 and 6.

Now what does this report create in term of precedence, or what would this report mean this election cycle if the media didn't stir it up at this point? Or what will this report and follow up reports do to solidify scientifically shaky climate change projection techniques during the next Democratic administration, 6, 10, or 14 years from now?

If this report had slid under the radar, a few thousand scientists in the climate change community/industry would have known of its existence. With this wide open airing (curteous NYT), it becomes a great foil to sow doubt in Bush's base as the the president's commitments on politically charged issues.

A newspaper reporting only a portion of the facts? Noooo... never. And yet, look at how quickly many here on fr have reacted. Still, I think I'll be looking at SUVs this week just to piss off some folks.

With this wide open airing (curteous NYT), it becomes a great foil to sow doubt in Bush's base as the the president's commitments on politically charged issues.

I'll give ya odds this is true. (The Bush admin. has already backpedaled on "global warming" months ago, and lo & behold!, now no offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico)
And as far as "sowing any doubt", that deed has already been accomplished by George W. Bush.

And if the "base" turns away from him, he, and all of his supporters, have nobody to blame but themselves.
Don't throw this at the Conservatives...it won't stick.

I've a question for those of you ardently & loyally standing by W:
If there was no war, how would you feel about him?

And please don't give me any cock 'n bull story about some grand plan to materialize if the GOP wins majorities in both House & Senate.

"..during the next Democratic administration, 6, 10, or 14 years from now?"

The odds are pretty high that there won't be any US administration (Democrat, Republican or otherwise) 14 years from now. The unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security exceed the politically possible ajustments, not to mention what is going to happen as the Republicans continue to move left.

Click here for a different approach.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am going to begin turning my wealth into digital currencies that are portable. I hope some one knowledgable will start a thread on alternatives to dollars and techniques on wealth keeping. This one seems interesting.

Now what does this report create in term of precedence, or what would this report mean this election cycle if the media didn't stir it up at this point? Or what will this report and follow up reports do to solidify scientifically shaky climate change projection techniques during the next Democratic administration, 6, 10, or 14 years from now?

If this report had slid under the radar, a few thousand scientists in the climate change community/industry would have known of its existence. With this wide open airing (curteous NYT), it becomes a great foil to sow doubt in Bush's base as the the president's commitments on politically charged issues.

First, I'm glad that the actual report isn't as the NYT represented it.
Second, the way to deal with it is to go on the offensive, take the initiative in the media. Bush and Whitman and other Administration spokesmen (get some sound, sane-speaking scientists, for Pete's sake) need to blow the hell out of the Global Warming boogeyman. Network news and the daily papers are all seeing declining audience share as the internet and talk radio wax in influence. We need to kick the Leftist media and their Democrat allies in the teeth over and over again with the straight facts, and stay on message.
Until the GOP steels itself and learns to wage political war to the death of every adversary in every theater, we have no one to blame but ourselves for getting jerked around by the paper tigers of the so-called "major media."