Replies

There is global warming over the long term. Human activity has increased greehouse gas emissions. Human activity most likely causes some global warming. The issue is whether the warming caused by human activity is anything more than minimal and whether that actually harms anyone. According to the report no one has read, science has not proven either proposition. Therefore the present policy is correct. It isn't Bush who is backtracking, it's Rush.

The Administration's position is that human activity is likely mostly due to human activity.

That is giving the benefit of the doubt to what most conservatives think is junk science. It is not a neutral position, IMO.

Regarding greenhouse gases, how did the earth manage to come out of the last ice age and melt thousands of miles of glaciers, snow and ice without the burning of fossil fuels? For Bush to even acknowledge that we might *possibly* affect global warming is to enter into dangerous territory

There is global warming over the long term. Human activity has increased greehouse gas emissions. Human activity most likely causes some global warming. The issue is whether the warming caused by human activity is anything more than minimal and whether that actually harms anyone.

I don't really think that's the issue, as you've conceded way too much ground for no scientific reason.
I posted this elsewhere, but I think it's pertinent...

From a scientific standpoint, you pretty much can be certain that even in the unlikely event that man is "causing" global warming, no one will ever be able to prove it. Here's why...

1. The Earth has been getting warmer since the last Ice Age ended about 12,000 years ago. From a climatological standpoint, the mesoscale baseline is: global warming.
2. Based on everything we've ever learned from archaelogy, this warming trend wasn't caused by man-made greenhouse gases.
3. We don't know now (and may not ever) what caused the warming trend.

Was it a bunch of volcanoes?
Solar weather fluctuates too, something we're only beginning to understand... Did the Sun get hotter?
Was it something else?

4. Although the overall trend is warmer, there are still other flucuations up and down along that gradually rising line.

About 4,200 years ago ancient civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley (Mohenjo-Daro), and elsewhere suffered catastrophic decline or disappeared. Best evidence now is an intercontinental famine caused by a planet-wide drought. But eventually that passed.
For several centuries before the glory years of the Vikings Scandinavia experienced milder winters and longer growing seasons. This led to the population explosion that enabled their expansion. The decline of the Vikings coincides with the cooling of the Nordic regions.
Which leads us to the Little Ice Age, which lasted in Europe from the 1300s to the 1600s. Glaciers advanced and growing seasons were shorter. And that too, passed.... All without an industrial civilization to change the global climate.

5. So not only is the overall climatological baseline over the last 12 millenia gradually warmer, without human intervention, there are also fluctuations along that baseline that demonstrate greater variance over longer periods than what the Chicken Littles claim they're observing now. And there's not even a consensus on that.

In science there's a burden of proof, and the global warming crowd hasn't met an ounce of it.
We don't need to pretend otherwise.