Ketch Klimball preparing this weekend using his special advance copy of next weeks NYSlimes latest hit piece on GW!
When did GW know about the flood and why didn't he tell Noah about it?
Posted on 06/04/2002 2:18:54 PM PDT by ZGuy
Report Relying On Discredited Science Previously Disavowed As Official Policy
Washington, D.C.,
The Environmental Protection Agency’s latest report on global warming to the United Nations, Climate Action Report 2002, violates an agreement between the White House and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, three members of Congress, and other non-profit advocacy groups, struck in settlement of a lawsuit. The report relies in part on the discredited National Assessment on Climate Change.
As a result of the lawsuit filed in October 2000, the Bush Administration ultimately agreed in September 2001 to withdraw the National Assessment and stated that its unlawfully produced conclusions are “not policy positions or official statements of the U.S. government.” EPA has ignored this agreement in issuing its report to the United Nations.
“Through Freedom of Information Act inquiries, we learned that the National Assessment was hurriedly slapped together in an incomplete and inaccurate form,” said Christopher C. Horner, CEI counsel who filed the lawsuit. “The current Climate Action Report inappropriately cites the disgraced National Assessment, in clear violation of the spirit and letter of our agreement with the White House in return for withdrawing our suit.”
Adds Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at CEI: “The Administration has recognized that the National Assessment is the worst sort of junk science. For the EPA now to accept the National Assessment’s findings as valid undermines and contradicts President Bush’s global warming policies. The EPA needs to be told that the Clinton Administration is gone and Al Gore did not win the election.”
The lawsuit against the White House’s flawed climate science was brought jointly by CEI, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Representatives Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), and other non-profit advocacy groups. CEI’s pleadings in the case can be found in the docket at the federal District Court for the District of Columbia (CV 00-02383).
"Rush Limbaugh is Bush's friend, folks, and he's in on it."
If this was just one example, I'd say maybe, but Rush has been on this anti-Bush tirade for quite a long time. He's lost listeners because of it, and he needed the ratings. Now it amuses me how many Rush spinners we need to tell us that Rush is "in on it"....or "this is just another example of Rush illustrating the absurd".
Rush has illustrated the absurd, and he is it!
With a little modification we can have"ENVIROSCHIZOPHRENIC NAZIS OR "ENVIROSCHIZOPHRENIC CRIMINALS"
Media Reality Check. "Demanding Further Concessions From Bush: ABC, CBS and NBC Promote Liberal Critics, Pretend Dissent Over Global Warming No Longer Exists"
Below is the text of a Media Reality Check by the MRC's Rich Noyes distributed this afternoon via fax.
It's posted online here
Before getting to the full text, two quotes in the pull-out box in the middle of the faxed page:
====
Two Experts Whom ABC, CBS & NBC Excluded:
"The key layers of air, from one to five miles high, show no human-made global warming trend. Global warming at the surface is largely, if not entirely, natural. Therefore, Kyoto-like greenhouse gas emissions cuts will not affect surface warming."
-- Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in a June 3 e-mail distributed by www.techcentralstation.com
"The problem with this report is it's based upon a series of climate models, two climate models, one British and one Canadian, none American, that work worse than a table of random numbers when applied to United States climate data as the greenhouse effect changes. Now that's bad, that's not ethical."
-- Dr. Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia climate scientist, on FNC's Hannity & Colmes, June 3.
Now, the text of the June 4 Media Reality Check:
Last year, when President Bush appeared skeptical of the liberal orthodoxy about global warming -- i.e., it's real, it's our fault, and punishing cutbacks in U.S. economic activity are the only way to prevent a climate catastrophe -- the news media pushed the notion that he was either a dunce or the corrupt pawn of special interests.
"President Bush insisted today that he was not caving in to big money contributors, big-time lobbyists, and overall industry pressure when he broke a campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, but the air was thick today with accusations from people who believe that's exactly what happened," Dan Rather smarmily insinuated on the March 14, 2001 CBS Evening News.
The networks had no problem hitting Bush from the left when he had a conservative position on global warming. But now that Bush's EPA has joined with liberals who say climate change is real and is caused by human activity, none of the networks even hinted at the wide array of scientists who still reject that premise. Instead, ABC, CBS and NBC last night gave airtime to critics who expressed disappointment that the administration had not slid further into the extremist camp.
NBC used loaded language to indicate that Team Bush was late in accepting the reality of the liberal view. "For the first time, this White House acknowledges human activity is responsible for greenhouse gases, and the problem poses some threats to this country's future," NBC's Tom Brokaw argued last night. "A dramatic shift, the Bush administration concedes it is mostly a man-made problem from pollution," correspondent Robert Hager echoed a few moments later.
Hager revealed that the EPA report included the view that warming could have positive repercussions, including lower heating bills and longer growing seasons, but CBS and ABC skipped over those inconvenient paragraphs. ABC's Terry Moran said it painted "the starkest picture yet" of the allegedly dire consequences of unchecked warming, while CBS's Bill Plante predicted "heat waves, widespread drought, rising sea levels and coastal erosion."
Plante lamented the lack of tough new regulations: "The report offers no new ideas beyond the President's plan to reduce greenhouse gases over the next decade through market incentives. Instead, it calls for adapting to the changing climate." Moran said the proposals amounted to telling Americans to "get used to it....The President has proposed some tax incentives and other things to reduce the intensity of global emissions, but that's not enough, say environmentalists." NBC's Hager showed Harvard University's Michael McElroy who slammed Bush from the left: "It's like being an alcoholic. So now you finally have found out that you have a drinking problem, but you're not prepared to give up the booze. You simply would like other people to do it for you."
CBS's Plante was the only correspondent who included a conservative criticism, a quote from former oil executive Bill O'Keefe that the EPA report is based on faulty science. (NBC included the fact that Rush Limbaugh had criticized Bush but didn't reveal the substance of Limbaugh's comment.)
A petition signed by 17,000 scientists protests the climate models that are being used to push for draconian new rules such as the Kyoto treaty, and many well-credentialed experts stepped forward yesterday to chastise the EPA report. But ABC, CBS and NBC excluded all of these experts from biased climate news.
END Reprint of Media Reality Check
Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has penned a piece on how "the administration forsakes science as a guide; doing so will never solve any environmental problem." To read it go here
-- Brent Baker
I would to see our new republican controlled congress in 2003 require that all fed employees from GS7 and above have to submit in writing their letter of resignation after each presidential election to the new president. Then, after he is sworn in that president has 4 years to leave them at their jobs or to accept their resignation.
Then we could apply your standards: Like undoing the absurd promotion to cabinet level. Add some serious accountability, like if you publish something without proper scientific rigor, you're automatically out the door, and maybe in jail, depending on how blatant. Like mandatory cost-of-implementation and cost-per-life-saved assesments that can't be sneaked around. Like a cap on department budget, not to exceed 0.001% of last year's GDP, etc.
This dual sword could be used in all federal departments to massively weed out and selectively weed out the Rat mantra/agenda pushers.
To make it fair, GW could ask for this bill in his state of union address. Congress could pass it the next day and require that all federal employees send their letter of resignation to GW. Then immediately your performance standards would be set into action.
Bush knows what is in the EPA report. He knows that some of the report's basis is the assessment mentioned in the article above. He knows the quality of the science in the assessment is faulty. But he lets the EPA report get published. He is going to make the Senate Dems put up or shut up!
Ketch Klimball preparing this weekend using his special advance copy of next weeks NYSlimes latest hit piece on GW!
When did GW know about the flood and why didn't he tell Noah about it?
Here is my solution tied in with another freeper on this thread.
To: Still Thinking
Your plan and my plan would clean up a lot re the federal employee mess.
I would to see our new republican controlled congress in 2003 require that all fed employees from GS7 and above have to submit in writing their letter of resignation after each presidential election to the new president. Then, after he is sworn in that president has 4 years to leave them at their jobs or to accept their resignation.
Then, we could apply your standards: Like undoing the absurd promotion to cabinet level. Add some serious accountability, like if you publish something without proper scientific rigor, you're automatically out the door, and maybe in jail, depending on how blatant. Like mandatory cost-of-implementation and cost-per-life-saved assesments that can't be sneaked around. Like a cap on department budget, not to exceed 0.001% of last year's GDP, etc.
This dual sword could be used in all federal departments to massively weed out and selectively weed out the Rat mantra/agenda pushers.
To make it fair, GW could ask for this bill in his state of union address. Congress could pass it the next day and require that all federal employees send their letter of resignation to GW. Then immediately your performance standards would be set into action.
45 posted on 6/4/02 4:00 PM Pacific by Grampa Dave
But they can't hide from Ben and Dave can they?
The problem is that it isn't those kinds of folks who produce this stuff. It is mid-level bureaucrats. The EPA, far more than almost any other Federal department, is infested with liberal eco-nuts. Besides which, the EPA is NOT qualified to undertake this kind of analysis--for an honest appraisal, you need to talk to geophysicists and geochemists, not "pollution control" chemists.
As it stands, these issues are as subjective and ephemeral as the Commerce Clause itself has become under the carefully twisted semantics of the liberals on both sides of the aisle.
This has been a problem for decades, and now with the election of GW, it has gotten worse. These Rat clymers are trying to conduct business like the Clintoon was still president, and they had Jake Reno to protect them from criminal action.
Miss Marple and I have been discussing this problem for over a year. Reports would come out about how GW failed us, and in all cases it was the civil service rats in the epa, forestry service, blm, interior, fbi, state, cia, justice posting their rat agendas. Then, the professional haters of GW would jump on the case until finally the proof came out that GW had nothing to do with it. They submit the unapproved policy and let the NY Slimes know. Then, the Slimes notifies its buddies on the left and right to bash GW.
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.