Posted on 06/03/2002 10:54:03 PM PDT by Pokey78
I know I'll be excoriated as a Bush toady for saying this, but I don't actually get the notion that the Bush administration has done a palpable U-turn on global warming.
Check out this story.
"Last year, the White House described climate change as a serious issue after seeking opinions of the National Academy of Sciences but was undecided about how much of the problem should be blamed on human activities," the Associated Press reports.This year, in a report to the U.N. no less, the administration argues that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."
Wow. What a change. And no one is claiming that the Bush administration has shifted actual policy. It's also a grotesque distortion to say that most conservatives completely rebut the notion of some human effect on global warming. Certainly Bjorn Lomborg acknowledges it.
My own view of this weird little summer story is that it's a major Howell Raines coup. A reporter finds some tiny and insignificant change in the wording of administration policy, and Raines puts it on his front page. Drudge takes the bait and Rush follows.
Chill, guys. It seems to me that the Bush administration has long held the sensible skeptical position (which does not preclude taking human impact on global warming seriously).
The difference between them and Al Gore is that they don't take this as a certainty or buy the notion you have to throw the economy into reverse to prevent it.
Good grief! You have just encapsulated what the Bush report says. The report recommends NO change in policy and it also says that we need more concrete evidence and to expect to adjust, downward or upward, the results based on more concrete evidence later.
Please take a deep breath and understand that Rush did not do his homework but rather based his opinion on the NYT and Drudge's sensationalized headlines.
Here is some stuff I've read for your own research:
This first one is a good article by Alan Caruba (most recent):
The True Agenda? Global Governance
Here is a site with raw data from satellite and ground temperature readings (Lots of stuff):
Detailed weather and satellite data
Here is a search of Enter Stage Right's articles about Global Warming (there are about 15 applicible articles here):
Various articles from Enter Stage Right
Good luck! (This should keep you busy for a while)...
I agree with your assessment of the report. I don't think Bush has flip-flopped... but some people believe the headlines and do not care to read further...
By insisting that there is no global warming, when in fact statistics show that it is occurring, conservatives set themselves up as unscientific neanderthals who don't care about the environment. This is a foolish position to be placed in.
It is much better to do good science and make decisions based on reasonable conclusions, using conservative solutions rather than big government actions.
To ignore or mock the data as being agenda driven without seriously looking at it is not helpful to our side. If warming is occurring, Gore's solutions would do nothing to solve the problem and in the process would wreck the economy and cause misery for millions of Americans.
You were going to think this way no matter what. You're not fooling anyone.
You definitely did not read the report, because if you did, you would not be able to come to that conclusion.
So, even though there is NO policy change in this issue, he somehow still compromised his "principles," right?
In a word, yes. Yes this is all that matters. The continuous harping on how "principled" one is really smacks of self-righteousness, and I don't buy into one's continuous bringing it up. There's another agenda at work when I see this, IMHO.
We're in danger of becoming everything that we've fought against.
Horse hockey.
I think that the average Joe Conservative is actually stupid. They have a hissy fit when you point to the political reality in the realm of politics. This is why the Left can run circles around us. We play by different rules.
The refusal to accept the fact that politics is ruled by political means is a form of psychosis. It's like lining up for kickoff in a tank top, shorts, and a basketball in your hand.
No, he hasn't. But this doesn't matter to the Chicken Littles.
"Green house gasses are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activity, causing global mean surface temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise.While the changes over the last several decades are likely due mostly to human activities, we cannot rule out that a significant part is also a reflection of natural variability" While current analyses are unable to predict with confidence the timing, magnitude, or regional distribution of climate change,the best scientific information indicates that if greenhouse concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur. The U.S. National Resarch Council has cautioned, however, that "because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reaacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warnings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments(either upwards or downwards)." Moreover, there is perhaps even greater uncertainty the social, environmental, and economic consequences of changes in climate.
it's pretty clear NOBODY is reading this report carefully, however, plenty seem to be getting suckered hook line and sinker by Rush who is fishing for ratings, Drudge who has lately been too quick with the sensationalist headlines, and the NY Slimes who is pushing a liberal agenda to tarnish Bush among his base.
You are incorrect! The President is NOT endorsing the Kyoto accord. If fact, if you look at the numbers produced by the accord, they say that any actions we would take (that they recommend) would have almost ZERO affect on global warming. Bush knows this and so do they. Research before bad-mouthing Bush.
ROFLMBBO!!!!!
Right. Sure.
However, I would point out to you that Mr. Caruba is operating from the premise that because the environmentalists are using global warming to push their agenda, the theory of global warming is therefore untrue.
This is a fallacy of logic. For example, because the democrats grabbed the poverty in some areas of the country and used it to justify welfare and big government solution, one should not conclude that there were no poor people in the United States.
What needs to be done is to ascertain the reliability of the data on both sides of the issue.
For example, on the second site the author makes the claim that tree rings are not reliable indicators because they only form in growth periods for the trees. The NOAA site factors in tree ring data as part of their compiled data. What differences would be seen in the graphs showing global warming trends if the tree ring data is removed? Would the trends be the same, or has tree ring data skewed the findings?
This is the type of information that needs to be looked at and discussed. I think a calmer approach would be the most helpful, and I do not think that Rush Limbaugh knows beans about science (and apparently very little about how to be successful in political strategy).
Which would make one think that the President has issued suggestions for changes in policy.
What are they?
Climate experts can correct me on this, but wasn't the hottest decade of the 20th century the 1930's?
Any any case, conservatives should be extremely wary of official environmenalist dicta. The rabidly anti-capitalist greens will sound any alarm to get us out of our cars, industries, and under gub control.
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.