Posted on 06/06/2002 3:07:53 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Q Ari, if I could change subjects for a second. This morning you said that the President quoted a speech, indicating that the President believes that human activity is largely responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases. But I'm wondering if he also agrees with an EPA report which indicated that human activity is likely the cause of global warming?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just read from the President's statement of June 11th on global warming, and let me read from the recent report the EPA submitted to the United Nations. And I think you'll hear that on the key issues, they really sound very, very similar. This is the President on June 11th in the Rose Garden, in a speech where he announced his global warming policies.
"Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially C02, have increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity." That's the President himself speaking.
Here is from the report, page 4, that was just submitted to the United States by the EPA: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as the result of human activities, causing global mean surface temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise. While the changes observed over the last several decades are due most likely to human activities, we cannot rule out that some significant part is also a reflection of natural variability." And I think what you're hearing is the same thing.
Q I'm glad you make the connection explicitly, since the President addressed greenhouse gases, but not specifically global warming. Does the President agree with the conclusion that human activity is likely the cause of global warming?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what the President said in his speech in June.
Q That's not exactly what he said. He does agree with it?
MR. FLEISCHER: When the President cites the National Academy of Science as saying that the National Academy of Science indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity, I don't know how the President could say it more specifically than that.
Q He hasn't changed his mind at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. Here's -- the bottom line for the President is, number one, he has made a proposal that he believes is a proposal that not only can reduce the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming, but also protects the American economy, so the American economy can lead the world in technological and scientific advances that also have an effect in reducing pollution.
The President has said, citing the National Academy of Sciences, that the increase is due in large part to human activity. The President has also continued, citing both, now this report the EPA has sent to the United Nations, previous evidence from the National Academy of Sciences, that there's uncertainty -- and the recent report notes that there is considerable uncertainty. That's the state of science, and the President agrees with it. I don't think people dispute that.
Q Its uncertainty, but he can still draw that conclusion, that --
MR. FLEISCHER: He didn't June 11th.
Q He didn't exactly do it, but you're saying it now.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, when the President cites a report by the National Academy of Sciences that indicates the increase is due in large part to human activity, I think you have two reports that are very similar.
Q Why was he --
Q Why did he call it the bureaucracy yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the EPA issued a report that says the same thing. And I think the President was also reflecting about some of the way it was covered, that made it sound as if the report was somehow inconsistent with what he had said previously.
Q I don't think he reflected at all, he just said that, I saw it put out by a bureaucracy. What did he reflect on?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sharing with you his insights.
Very large distinction between acknowledging the fact that Co2 concentrations( one variety of "greenhouse gas") were in large part due to industrialization and the subject of Global warming.
Calling a man every thing from, liberal, to socialist, to pansy to traitor is NOT criticism it is demonizing him. I have yet to see ANY constructive criticism of this president from the mouth foamers around here.
Endorsing a proposal which states humans can reduce global warming means that he believes we were at least partly responsible for it in the first place.
No one is denying that the report says there is SOME human contribution. That is a far cry from Primary causes. Co2 is only ONE "greenhouse gas" out of hundreds or thousands. Bush talked EXCLUSIVLY about Co2 releases since the industrial revolution. That is not a subject of debate on either side of the question. Co2 emissions have a direct and measurable human contribution. To say otherwise is a lie. Bush however, made NO assertion that GLOBAL WARMING had a significant human cause. You are mixing the context and trying to make it fit your own view just as the NYT did. They know the difference between so called greenhouse gasses and global warming but the gambled that us “idiots” out here would know the difference. Apparently some don’t.
I coldn't believe it. Why didn't he propose cutting spending to pay for this, instead of raising taxes? Why didn't he suggest postponing taxpayer funding for prescription drugs for the elderly for 2-3 years?
Or instead of a 50% increase for the NSF over the next 5 years, why not a 50% (inflation adjusted) over 10 years? Or why not cut many of the non-essential pork items being stuffed into this years budget?
How do you answer this Rush?
At least the author of that quote did a little CYA at the end. However, that does not matter because all that will EVER be covered by the press is the fact that the administration endorsed a report which stated that human activities have lead to an increase in Earth's temperatures. The press won't include that little caveat about "natural variability".
I'll bet anything he was being tongue-in-cheek.
I like Rush, and listen to him almost everyday... I heard this statement...and thought it was rather silly and defensive.
He's using the same carbon copy liberal cliche that anyone who doesn't agree with his criticisms of Bush, must therefore be a brain-washed robot who would defend anything Bush does.
It's a childish argument.
Why that Socialist, NWO, Tax and Spend Fat Bastard, I voted for him, But now he has lost my support, I don't trust him anymore and I believe he wants to take away our freedoms. I Will not vote for Rush ever again, When is Rush gonna stop the MILLIONS of EVIL Mexicans from coming here illegally? That's it!!!!!! I'm voting for a candidate that will bring us another WJC. < /sarcasm > Off
It was tongue and cheek, I heard the remark :-)
I know part of it is me, I had hoped for a President of the stature and passion of Ronald Regan to pilot us through this war on terror with a steady hand, who unabashedly loved his fellow American citizen with a passion that was above anything petty politics could touch or direct. Pure unashamed patriotism flowed from his pours and infected those around him. Regan used his sharp mind and bent every effort to beat the Washington political machine at it's own game.
Bush is not that, he's more of a political animal, a left leaning, compromising political animal. I think Rush see's that also. Sure Rush is an entertainer, concerned with ratings and promoting himself. In him it is a harmless endeavor, if he makes a mistake or puts his foot in his mouth, it's no big thing accept to a few. Rush steers a conservative course and calls all into account that take an oath to stay that course and do not, not many guys can pull that off in Socialist America, so despite a blunder now and then he has my respect.
How's it goin?
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.