Suppose there is evidence that some global warming is occurring or has occurred. Actual evidence, not anecdotal stuff and models.
This would not be the first time there has been climate change in historical times. We have the records of grape-growing areas far north of where they are now viable.
We also have the record of the Little Ice Age, when the Thames froze over every winter.
It is quite possible that we are now in a cyclic climate change again, which can be called "global warming" but is as natural as the change of the seasons. Some portion of it might (and I say MIGHT) be accelerated slightly by human contributions.
It seems to me that a responsible president who looks at more than his next election might start pointing the country and the world towards actions to mitigate a disaster, and as has been repeatedly pointed out, he is not thinking Kyoto will help. The statements about adapting to the situation are indicative of this attitude.
Most people have discounted global warming because the left has used it as a tool to promote radical environmental policies. What if there really IS global warming? Most of the people who don't believe in it have no more scientific proof on their side than the loony envirals do on theirs.
It is quite possible that we are now in a cyclic climate change again, which can be called "global warming" but is as natural as the change of the seasonsIf it is cyclical, then there is no global warming, just a temporary phase of a cycle around a norm. Global warming implies an increasing norm.
Stating that there is going to be all the environmental wreckage that the report claims is specious at best, and cedes entirely too much of the philosophical battle to the left, for no reason that I can fathom, unless Mudboy Slim is right that this is to placate some of our allies to aid the war on terrorism.
My question in this latest Bash Bush by right wing radio hosts is this - Why has no one questioned the timing of this report? It is apparently an annual document ("the Third Annual" is on the title page) and has been on the EPA website for a week. Are Bush critics implying that instead of travelling to Europe and meeting with Presidents and the Pope he should have been home proofreading!
I think this one sentence that has sent everyone ballistic, could have been dropped in by an enviromole at EPA.
I heard enough of Drudge last night to know that he was salivating on this 'flip-flop' of megaproportions. When I turned on Rush this afternoon to find that he had swallowed the NYT/Drudge bait, I decided that my afternoon schedule would have to change. So I came to FreeRepublic to see if anyone had started a thread about Rush's comments. I couldn't find one, so I ended up taking a nap, instead. :)
By the time I got back to FR, I had to read more than 300 posts. Good discussion as usual, and very interesting and satisfying to find that the Freepers, whose opinions I value, are seeing this the same way I do.