BUSH DISMISSES ADMINISTRATION REPORT ON 'WARMING'

Drudge ^ | Drudge

[CoolGuyVic]

"'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,' Bush said dismissivly... "

More to come, I'm sure

[let freedom sing]

I heard Peter Jennings mention the global warming report last nite (with a smirk)-- comment about human activities, but never mentioned the major part that has nothing to do with human activities-- whatever cycle the earth is moving into on its own accord.

[willa]

.....well maybe, just maybe "W" didn't like being called George W. AlGore! If someone called me a AlGore, I'd do a 180 myself!

Agreed. I think people are missing this. You get action from politicians when you make noise. If nobody would have said anything - do you think there would have been this clarification? Support from Rush is vital and worth mega millions to the Republican Party - and it doesn't cost them a dime.

Keeping politicians feet to the fire is our responsibility. It works - silence is not golden.

[Nick Danger]

the discussion right now is on 1) did the EPA report say humans caused some Global Warming, and 2) is this position a deviance from the conservative agenda that GWB subscribed to?

you were happy to see this administration admitting to the fact of it

For lefties, it is an article of faith that global warming is substantially caused by human activity; that a change in human activity could affect it; that the warming effects will be bad enough that they are worth doing something about; and that we know enough now to tell that the changes being proposed would make things better, not worse.

I say that these are articles of faith because the lefties do not have a convincing scientific case to make about a single one of those points, yet they will call you all sorts of names if you disagree with them.

Now here you come calling me names because I won't take on faith some other set of projections that you like, and which you seem to think are part of "the conservative agenda." They have their bogus numbers, so we need some of our own, is that it?

Well, I reject that. When I do my political agendas, I try to keep the faith-based science out of them. I cannot imagine what benefit there is in tying a political agenda to a position on a question of science, especially one that is as fluid as this one is.

To illustrate with the extreme case, by lighting this match I increase the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. I have unambiguously caused there to be more heat energy in the atmosphere than existed before I lit the match. Given that, how secure are you in tying your political agenda to a statement that humans cause no global warming?

Isn't the real issue here whether human activities are a sufficiently large component of what's going on that we need to bother with changing our behavior, lest something bad happen? And isn't taking the position that the human component is zero as silly as the lefties' position that it is large enough to move on now? Since the scientists tell us that they don't know how large the human component is, aren't both positions just articles of faith? Let the lefties keep their junk science. We don't need to emulate their tactics. Let's just say we don't know (since that's the truth) and go on our merry way.

The bottom line is, we're not going to implement the Kyoto treaty. But we're going to use the lefties' own rhetoric to stick them with new nuclear power plants, and more coal and natural gas. Whoo hoo.

[Howlin]

Saber, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough: I believe that there is global warming -- but I believe it's the natural cycle of the EARTH; what mankind contributes to it, I do not know; but I do know it would be happening with us or without us. Just like before.

[Howlin]

Or perhaps Bush just hadn't gotten around to comment on it, huh? You know, HE does have more things to do that sit around all day, looking in the newspapers to figure out what he wants to rant about that day.

[Howlin]

Oh, sure. I use to like her, but I feel the same way you do; HOW can any self-respecting woman stay married to a man like that. Especially a REPUBLICAN woman.

[nunya bidness]

Bush did not order this report Clinton did.

Wrong.

"The Senate consented to ratification of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change on October 7, 1992, with a two-thirds majority division vote; President Bush signed the instrument of ratification of the Convention on October 13, 1992."

SOURCE

[Howlin]

Is that really on Rush's web site?

[Sabertooth]

To illustrate with the extreme case, by lighting this match I increase the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. I have unambiguously caused there to be more heat energy in the atmosphere than existed before I lit the match. Given that, how secure are you in tying your political agenda to a statement that humans cause no global warming?

Hey Nick,

We actually aren't far apart at all on this, but I'm intrigued by your matchlighting illustration, and want to follow it along a bit.

Since you didn't spontaneously create the chemical components that made the ignition of the match possible, they were already part of the potential energy of the earth, whether or not you actually light the match. Since matter and energy are conserved, you haven't added anything to the system.

The theory behind human-induced "global warming" holds that enough energy from outside the system, solar radiation, gets trapped by industrial gases in the atmosphere and isn't reradiated at the proper rate (whatever that is) to maintain a climatological stasis. That is, humans are adding to the system by somehow preventing heat from being exhausted from it.

Releasing the potential energy of a match does not fit the criteria of preventing heat from being rereleased from the atmosphere and is therefore not global warming, anymore than the chemical energy released by food digestion is global warming.

So yeah, I'm still prepared to say that there's no human-induced global warming, because I'm dead certain it'll never be proven that there is. But that doesn't answer your question.

Am I ready to tie a political agenda to it? Only insofar as is necessary to trump those who would intrude on my freedoms and way of life based on faith on their part in "global warming."

[Sabertooth]

Came back from the tarpits, eh Sabertooth?

You da man.

I was there when the tar pits were skidmarks on a glacier, and man had nothing to do wih making it otherwise.

[maica]

I think there is something between him and the current administration that grates on him

So do I. I really was a faithful listener and I kept waiting for him to ease up, to focus on the needs of getting our majority back in congress, etc; yet it seemed that every week he had a new bone to pick with President Bush.

[willa]

Or perhaps Bush just hadn't gotten around to comment on it, huh? You know, HE does have more things to do that sit around all day, looking in the newspapers to figure out what he wants to rant about that day.

Perhaps. We'll have to wait and see where this issue goes from here.

Squeeky wheels get the oil.

[Howlin]

I don't think Rush has been "down" to the White House, has he? Perhaps he believes he's not getting the proper respect he deserves, having gotten Bush elected and all.

[Texasforever]

Or could it be Bush has dissed his conservative base in favor of poll numbersFrom what I can see,

YOUR brand of "conservative" constitutes about 5% of his so-called base. You are getting the full 5% in support from him. Which is far more than I would give you.

[Howlin]

That's for sure. Rush and Drudge and the New York Times all got the "oil" yesterday.

[Howlin]

What IS going on between Rush and Bill and Sean??

[Texasforever]

Squeeky wheels get the oil.

You honestly don't believe the squeaking mice had an effect on this do you? LMAO

[Howlin]

During the campaign, Bush said he was FOR campaign finance reform, as long as it fit his ideas; he warned Congress not to expect him to do their work.

Where was the flip flop?