Posted on 06/03/2002 10:04:46 AM PDT by hchutch
1. The US was obligated to prepare and submit the report.
2. It’s a great argument for nuke power.
See below from National Review’s The Corner.
OVERHEATED TIMES TWO [Jonathan Adler]
A front-page New York Times story claims that the U.S. government has officially acknowledged the coming greenhouse apocalypse. Last week, the administration submitted the 2002 Climate Action Report to the United Nations. This report summarizes recent national and international syntheses of climate science, and describes some of the "likely" and "possible" impacts of increased emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate changes.
As is to be expected from any document produced by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of State, the report accentuates the negative. (For a more balanced presentation of the science see here and here.) At the same time, however, the report time and again reiterates the uncertainty of climate science. The Times nonetheless opens its story by claiming the report "detail[s] specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment." Not quite. The report outlines some specific potential scenarios, but it carefully states all of its predictions in probabilistic terms and reiterates the National Academy of Sciences' conclusion that specific predictions about climate change are, as yet, impossible. More importantly, the report notes (and the Times acknowledges) that global warming is likely to increase agricultural and forest productivity and that insofar as some climate change is inevitable, current policies should embrace adaptive measures, not crash energy diets. There's no need to wait to see how the report will be spun. The Times was ready this morning with an editorial calling for congressional action to regulate greenhouse gases. No doubt Senator Jeffords will do his best to oblige.
Drudge is looking to stir things up on a slow summer newsday in June.
You are so right on...and this is pretty much what Rush implied, IMHO. Plus he said now the Congress will use this as fodder for some sort of "investigation," which, of course, the President cannot and will not support. Then he will look like an idiot.
LOL
But, golly, you are SO right: Rush's analogies are so flawed, in so many ways, it is just annoying to even hear them posited. And the overreaction to whatever it is today that Rush disagrees with Bush about . . . I don't see any accurate contextual perspective at all.
I was wondering if Rush somehow felt slighted by the administration and, thus, has gotten a case of the whines against them and the Pres. I don't see Rush as being like that, but, then again, he is only human.
You are right on. I tune in occasionally to see if things are changed; within ten minutes the radio is off again.
I respectfully disagree, Howlin. Please read posts #37 and #51 for the perspective from which I believe Rush is coming...and which I share.
If they have only an 8th grade, you must have dropped out of Kindergarden! Let me spell it out for you. Humans on a year average produce 10 Billion Metric tons of CO2. The earth produces 200 Billion metric tons of CO2 yearly. From where? Sea water evaporating!
Need more for an education?
Mt. Minotubo (sic) and Mt. St. Helen eruptions combined produced more CO2 emissions then all the coal generating power plants have in the last 100 years.
Just 30 years ago the CO2 emissions were ushering the new ice age, now its a global warming. Wake up and educate yourself. Global Warming is the biggest marxist hoax ever pulled on the world next to the Palestinians right to a homeland (PS theres no such thing as a Palestinian just to further educate yourself. They are displaced Eygptians and Jordanians)
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.