[Jhoffa_]

So, at this time it appears from what you have read, that the NY Slimes as usual as a lying left wing maggot infested fishwrap did some Creative Lying on this Bravo Sierra Article.

So it appears, that or the "quotes" aren't "quotes" after all.. (which in my mind is deceptive, since this whole thing kind of hangs on a couple of very provocative "quotes" from NYT via Drudge)

I linked the report in #600 if anyone is interested in viewing it in it's entirety. I warn ya though, it's 268 pages long and boring as moss on a rock. The best I could muster was a quick flipping through it.. AND I AM INTERESTED

I can't imagine being forced to read it as an assignment or whatever.. Blah!

[cmsgop]

Where the Heck Have You Been?

I was about to dispatch Richard Simmons to organize a search party!

[cmsgop]

Yoo Hoo???????????

[Grampa Dave]

At age 63, I don't eat brussel sproats nor do I read boring reports like this one.

We have some fine tooth freepers who will go over this report, and then we will have a better knowledge of it after they give us their report on it.

MJY1288 has read it and agrees with your first glance at it.

[jwalsh07]

On the Global Warming issue, Rush has cast himself as the useful idiot to the New York Times.

[Howlin]

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.
Posted 9:59 AM | [Link]

52 posted on 6/3/02 11:48 AM Eastern by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse