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

It seems to me that Matt wasn't quite listening here, appears to be one comment taken out of context.
1 posted on 06/03/2002 10:04:47 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: hchutch
that's what I thought
2 posted on 06/03/2002 10:05:40 AM PDT by Kwilliams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
No one click the link, its spelled wrong and re-routes to a porn site.

-Eric

3 posted on 06/03/2002 10:07:05 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
What did rush say?
4 posted on 06/03/2002 10:07:05 AM PDT by smith288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
Well I just wonder though what Bush IS doing?
I mean it's getting so that I don't know where he stands on some of these things. If he's doing to hijack the demoRATS agenda, then I'll eat my shoes.
5 posted on 06/03/2002 10:07:41 AM PDT by BIOMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
I think the Bildebergers told W. to change his tune on global warming and VOILA presto change-o. That is my conspiracy theory for the day...... ;^)
9 posted on 06/03/2002 10:11:02 AM PDT by Siobhan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
Again, Drudge is jumping the gun. He has no scruples whatsoever. Rush hasn't ripped anyone. I am convinced Drudge is posting this crap to get a rise out of people the same way he carelessly posted pieces of the NYT article.
12 posted on 06/03/2002 10:13:44 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN JUNE 02, 2002 18:04:09 ET XXXXX

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

In a stunning U-turn 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.

MORE
Also for the first time -- the White House places "most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions -- mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere," the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Monday Page Ones, according to publishing sources.

The United States will be substantially changed in the next few decades, claims the Bush report. The United States will "very likely" be seeing the "disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes."

MORE
I say....
Rush thinks Bush is just doing this so that liberals won't have an issue to attack him on. Takes away the globull warming BS issue from Democrats if Bush goes along with them on it.... But it isn't any hotter here in Los Angeles than it was when we lived here in 1988-1990 and again in 1997. Same ole weather patterns we enjoyed back then are here today.

Plus they say it is hotter everywhere. I went to a website that claimed it is hotter all over Texas now that it was in 1945-46 and up through 1994. BS !!! It was hotter in 1980 and 1981 than it is in Lake Jackson, Texas (our other home) now! I remember 1980 cause I was in Europe month of May and came back to HOT spell from hell. Had first son, Gary in 1981 and I still remember how hot it was that summer.

One summer after we moved to Lake Jackson from Clute, Texas I remember it was so hot I hung curtains and sheets and room darkening shades on the windows to keep the heat out. I hung a towel over the front door window to keep the heat out. That was when Gary was in 6 grade. It has NEVER gotten that hot again in Lake Jackson.

But the stooopid sheeples just believe what ever the 'experts' tell them. sheeee-it. Gullible sheeples believe globull warming BS. I go check my thermometer in my backyard and the OFFICIAL temp that is reported for my town is often a lot higher than the reading on my own thermometer. I remember a couple of summers ago it was really cool all summer. The next summer it was hot in afternoon, but dry. The next summer it was normal again. We had floods in LJ in 1976, 1979, and again in early 1990s. Just cycles of climate and weather and moisture IMHO.

I believe it is all just natural cycles and man is arrogant to believe he is changing the climate of the world. Plus if the world heats up, or a species dies off, perhaps that is God's plan!!! Like when he changed the climate and killed the dinosaurs. And what caused the dust bowl of the 1930????? Not Man!

14 posted on 06/03/2002 10:14:58 AM PDT by buffyt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
Well, I heard the Rush diatribe (it's probably still going on) and it was my impression that Druge got it right: Rush is ripping and ripping and ripping Bush a new one. Seems this goes on everyday.

It's not only annoying, it's boring. Please, Freepers, don't flame me as someone who won't countenance criticism of "our" president.

Of course I strongly believe Bush should be criticized whenever it's appropriate. However, Rush lately has launched out at the administration on tangents that simply are not well-founded; moreover, Rush has lost whatever skill he had at understanding the political zeitgeist and the political context.

I've had it with his show for now. He never has anything uplifting to say, just whining all the time. He is making O'Reilly look like the Sunshine Man.

17 posted on 06/03/2002 10:15:17 AM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
I'd say that Rush and Drudge both have the intellect of a good 8th grade social studies student; that neither has read the actual report; and that both are making a knee jerk reaction. 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.

To add one more thing, I'd say that Rush, since his hearing problem, has become extremely one-dimensional in his thinking. His analogies are continually flawed, he can't see the forest for the trees, and he overreacts to everything Bush does that he disagrees with. I tune him in rarely and am disappointed every time I do.

18 posted on 06/03/2002 10:15:29 AM PDT by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
It seems to me that Matt wasn't quite listening here, appears to be one comment taken out of context.

What are you talking about?? I've been listening for over an hour, and that's EXACTLY what Rush has been saying about this latest idiocy. He's disgusted and p'o'd. Sounds to me that he's very close to being completely fed up. He said (paraphrased), "What other liberal issue is left to co-opt from the left as a means of "taking issues away from them"? Oh yes...the minimum wage. That's coming up this week too. And then there's always abortion..."

BTW, any minute now someone will be along to say Rush is a moron...

21 posted on 06/03/2002 10:17:24 AM PDT by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
Man am I glad this is just part of some bigger plan we're not aware of yet < /sarcasm>. Would somebody tell me, besides the war on terrorism (which is getting a bit big for its britches to me), what ten things Bush has done that even resembles conservative thought?
24 posted on 06/03/2002 10:18:32 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
We just drove to Los Angeles from Lake Jackson (south of Houston). On the way we noticed the speed limit was 70 to 75 MPH. It is 55 in Houston area, and 8 surrounding counties. Yet, most of the surrounding towns in our area, Brazosport, and others -- are TINY almost rural towns, with little or no commerce, no industry, no heavy traffic, no pollution, etc. We got lumped into the Houston containment area by the TNRCC, a branch of the EPA. We have speed limits of 55 all over all 8 counties now. I drove through that area on May 14 and saw a handful of farm vehicles. It was friggin rural countryside, farms and tiny towns of a few hundred to a few thousand people. Yet we drove to LA on highways crowded with 18 wheelers and thousands of cars, through large towns with lots of industry, commerce, pollution. But they get to drive 70 - 75 since they aren't polluting the ozone? Yet Clute which has almost NO business, has no industry, about two cars driving down Main street in mid day, is polluting the atmosphere? If the EPA wants to do a good job and be respected, they should do a a better job of making sense. This makes as much sense as searching an 80 year old white haired woman in a wheelchair at airport security. I mean even if she had knitting needles, could a frail old woman overpower anyone? Good ole US gov.....
31 posted on 06/03/2002 10:21:45 AM PDT by buffyt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
So is this "Global Warming" the reason I have had two successive winters of 18" minimum to 30" maximum snowfalls, in an area that is supposed to only have 4" annually? If that is the case, I would hate to see what they might consider "normal".
34 posted on 06/03/2002 10:22:23 AM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
From what I heard Rush say...he was saying that the Bush report states that Global warming is real...but it has BOTH good and bad results. It states that humans are resonsible...but that the bad is needed to make the environment better. ???
43 posted on 06/03/2002 10:25:50 AM PDT by Sungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
Bush is pandering to the Moderate Voters hoping that it will help him get re-elected in 2004, and help the Republicans regain the Senate, and increase their strength in the House. Nothing more should be read into this situation.
44 posted on 06/03/2002 10:26:12 AM PDT by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
RUSH. Read the report.
49 posted on 06/03/2002 10:27:33 AM PDT by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
waaaah....i dont wanna drink kool aid anymore.
57 posted on 06/03/2002 10:31:48 AM PDT by galt-jw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hchutch
Who are the people that are goood at getting tghrough to talk shows.......somebody needs to teach Rush a lesson. I am fed up with this crap from him.
59 posted on 06/03/2002 10:31:57 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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: 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 ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

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