| before we make huge changes in our policies and way of life, it would be best to have more concrete evidence. And this is where it seems to me the Bush report fails the test.
|
| before we make huge changes in our policies and way of life, it would be best to have more concrete evidence. And this is where it seems to me the Bush report fails the test.
|
For the record, I tend not to believe that global warming, if it's occurring, is necessarily caused by human activities, and I tend to think that natural actions of the earth would tend to ameliorate some of the effects if it were occuring for any cause.
I do wonder about all those weather stations that are located at airports....no trees and lots of black pavement!
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.
Which would make one think that the President has issued suggestions for changes in policy.
What are they?
The guy who is failing the test here is you. That is because you are expressing high levels of certainty about what this report contains when it is obvious that you have not read a word of it. To those who have actually cracked the cover of the thing, your statements that Bush is advocating "huge changes in our policies and way of life" sound like the rantings of a madman. Go read the damned thing, will you? There's nothing like that in there. No Kyoto, no banning of SUV's, nothing of the sort.