Bush changes position on Global Warming

[JeffWartman]

What has happened to your supreme leader, RSR?

Excerpt:

Bush in U-turn on global warming

By Andrew Ward and Edward Luce in Washington and Fiona Harvey in London

Published: May 31 2007 16:06 | Last updated: May 31 2007 19:25

George W. Bush on Thursday unveiled a striking about-face on global warming, calling on the world’s leading economies to join the US in agreeing a global target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions before the end of his term in office....

Full story: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/32856c56-0f84-11dc-a66f-000b5df10621.html

 

[Superlative]

Mr Bush said: “Science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it.

“By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases.”



This sounds alot like flip flopping to me.

 

[JeffWartman]

Mr Bush said: “Science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it.

“By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases.”



This sounds alot like flip flopping to me.

President Bush is basically now acknowledging that global warming is real and man made. I'm not making that claim, but I find it interesting to learn what the loyal Bushies will think about this...

 

[Vintij]

It was only a matter of time. Besides, all the loyal bush supporters/ conservatives dont really care about the research done on climate change. They just hold their position because its the right (wing) thing to do. They would jump off a bridge if bush told them too. Instead of doing their own research and deciding for themselves. Especially RSR.

 

[Superlative]

To be fair, there is ample evidence to support both arguements. for and against Climate change.

I just find it strange that Bush would change sides, when there is evidence to support his original position.

 

[Bern80]

I don't think this can be called a flip flop or reversal of position or whatever. I don't recall Bush ever saying that he didn't believe in man made global warming in the first place.

Unfortunately I think Bush is the one caveing into popularity on this one. Beleiveing that man is causing global warming is the popular thing right now after all. Yet there is plenty of highly credible research out there that says man has little to do with the current warming trend.

 

[maineman]

I don't think this can be called a flip flop or reversal of position or whatever. I don't recall Bush ever saying that he didn't believe in man made global warming in the first place.

Unfortunately I think Bush is the one caveing into popularity on this one. Beleiveing that man is causing global warming is the popular thing right now after all. Yet there is plenty of highly credible research out there that says man has little to do with the current warming trend.

are you suggesting that the preponderance of credible research does NOT support man's influence in global warming?

 

[JeffWartman]

To be fair, there is ample evidence to support both arguements. for and against Climate change.

I just find it strange that Bush would change sides, when there is evidence to support his original position.

That is also my point. I'm not arguing in favor of global warming; I'm just saying it's very very odd that Bush would change positions like this.

 

[JeffWartman]

are you suggesting that the preponderance of credible research does NOT support man's influence in global warming?

There is credible evidence on both sides of the global warming debate.

 

[hjmick]

I believe the question is not so much whether or not humans influence the factors that contribute to global warming, but rather how much do we influnce these factors.

 

[maineman]

There is credible evidence on both sides of the global warming debate.

I never said there was not credible evidence on both sides but that the extent, amount, and depth of research is certainly weighted on one side, would you not agree?

 

[JeffWartman]

I never said there was not credible evidence on both sides but that the extent, amount, and depth of research is certainly weighted on one side, would you not agree?

I would agree that the side of which the research is weighted is historically political and the fact that "research" does not always mean "good research"

The single biggest mistake you could make in this debate is thinking that the scientific community is completely convinced of man made global warming and it is a done deal.

 

[Bern80]

are you suggesting that the preponderance of credible research does NOT support man's influence in global warming?

I would echo Jeff's sentiments on that. Yes the man made theory is what we are predominantly exposed to, that doesn't mean it's accurate. What I have read in opposition to the man made theory has it's own theory of a natural cycle as well as pointing out some issues with various research done on the man made theory.

I have suggested to you several times some research look at opposing the man made theory. I suppose you haven't done that yet have you?

 

[JeffWartman]

And I see that RSR has completely ignored this thread...typical.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What has happened to your supreme leader, RSR?



Full story: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/32856c56-0f84-11dc-a66f-000b5df10621.html

Nobody's buying it. He's had seven years to sign on to the Kyoto Protocols and failed to do so. Given his utter intransigence on other issues, it's hard to imagine that he's had a sudden change of heart and his actions are viewed not so much as a sea-change as they are a smoke-screen.

<blockquote> Some critics accused Mr. Bush of trying to hijack continuing environmental talks like those under the Kyoto treaty by substituting his own program, which even if successful would not bear fruit until he is about to leave office in 2009.

And, they said, the president delivered no clear statement on what steps the United States would take to limit emissions over the next 10 to 20 years, while he was working on long-term goals for the next 50 years and beyond. - <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/washington/01prexy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin>NYT</a></blockquote>

And, of course, those long term goals may be waived if the countries that would sign on to Chimpy's proposal didn't feel like adhering to them.

 

[Toro]

I would agree that the side of which the research is weighted is historically political and the fact that "research" does not always mean "good research"

The single biggest mistake you could make in this debate is thinking that the scientific community is completely convinced of man made global warming and it is a done deal.

Or that they have all the answers on how to deal with it.

 

[Toro]

What was the Kyoto vote in the 1990s by the Senate?

95-0?

96-0?

I can't remember.

 

[Gunny]

It was only a matter of time. Besides, all the loyal bush supporters/ conservatives dont really care about the research done on climate change. They just hold their position because its the right (wing) thing to do. They would jump off a bridge if bush told them too. Instead of doing their own research and deciding for themselves. Especially RSR.

And Bush bashers would jump off a bridge just as quick if the Bush-bashing agenda dictated such.

This is a PERFECT example of you "Bush can do no right" types. Something obviously has convinced him that your argument is right, but you have to try and attach some nefarious reasoning to it. Couldn't possibly be that perhaps his belief was changed based on new data? You know, the way people are supposed to think?

 

[hjmick]

What was the Kyoto vote in the 1990s by the Senate?

95-0?

96-0?

I can't remember.

95-0 against.

 

[DeadCanDance]

President Bush is basically now acknowledging that global warming is real and man made. I'm not making that claim, but I find it interesting to learn what the loyal Bushies will think about this...

Global warming denialists are a dying breed. Honestly, I think the only reason they continue to deny it is because of ego. They're emotionally-invested in denying global warming: they've spent the last 20 years trying to deny it.

I can remember that in the 1990s, denialists were saying that there was NO long-term warming trend.

Then a few years ago they started saying, yeah well maybe there is a warming trend, but man has nothing to do with it.

Next, they'll be saying that maybe man has a little to do with it, but let the free market take care of it.


Basically, their argument changes all the time.