Newsweek Falsely Claims that Bush has Conceded Global Warming is Caused by Human Activity
Newsweek Falsely Claims that Bush has Conceded Global Warming is Caused by Human Activity
The most recent Newsweek has an article called “The President: Shades of Green,” examining the President’s environmental record. Newsweek reports that Bush has conceded human activity is responsible for global warming:
And on global warming, the most controversial part of his green scorecard, Bush acknowledged back in June 2001 that the National Academy of Sciences believed climate change was “due in large part to human activity.” The dispute is what to do about that warming.
Bush did say that in June 2001. (In the next sentence he says “we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming.”) Since that time, however, he has said there is a “dispute,” not just about the solution, but about whether human activity is responsible. For example, on June 26, 2006 Bush said:
I think — I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused.
Bush is describing a debate that doesn’t exist. There is a scientific consensus that global warming is real and the human activity is largely responsible. This is reflected in the most recent report by International Panel on Climate Change, which was vigorously reviewed and accepted by thousands of scientists, and every peer-reviewed journal article since 1993.
Bush is way out of the mainstream on global warming. You just wouldn’t know it by reading Newsweek.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush is way out of the mainstream on everything. If it were not for the mainstream media covering his Ass at every turn, he would have been run out of Washington by now.
Hey Check out this giant list of Political comics featuring the idiot himself George W. Bush,
+ all his cohorts and henchmen
H.L.s Comics
July 10th, 2006 at 10:05 amI just read the article. It’s a pretty shoddy piece of journalism at best, but I wouldn’t necessarily characterize it as overly “pro-Bush”.
Gotta love how the folks who are very concerned about Bush’s environmental policies are labeled “activists”. That’s a good one. How about interviewing Christine Todd Whitman for this Newsweek? Wouldn’t that be an obvious thing to do here? You folks didn’t even mention her.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:12 amGlobal warming? What’s that?
July 10th, 2006 at 10:20 amAbout time one of these so-called Journalists got one wrong in our favor. I say our favor, because if it sounds like Bush supports the reality (shocking, I know), then perhaps some of his blind faithful might start to consider the truth.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:21 amfrom the article:
…he lampooned Gore’s plans to cut taxes for those living a green lifestyle. “How many of you own a hybrid electric-gasoline-engine vehicle?” he would ask at rallies. “How many of you have a rooftop photovoltaic system?”
just imagine what tax cut incentives would have done to raise those numbers…
July 10th, 2006 at 10:28 ameven 6 years ago… not the 30+ as it should have been…
The upshot of all of this is that Gore is looking better and better each day. I continue to be impressed by just how dead-on he was back in 2000.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:31 amMSMBC – the other Fox network.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:37 am“What, ME Worry?”—George W. Bush.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:39 am#6
July 10th, 2006 at 10:46 amDo you think he’ll run in ‘08?
Off topic but, if the explosion in NYC this morning was just a gas leak,why so much coverage by the MSM? This could really put a dent in the “Fight them there so we dont have to fight them here” bullshit if it turned out otherwise…..
July 10th, 2006 at 11:00 amRandy,
I think he’ll run if there’s a sufficiently large campaign to get him to do so, preferably grass-roots. Such a campaign from the Democratic party might also work, I just don’t see it happening.
One of the things that still surprises me is how many people still don’t like Gore, apparently. There was a CNN poll where he came out on top of the list of people folks would actively vote *against*. He was in front of Hillary. Makes no sense to me given what’s transpired the past six years.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:02 am“Fight them there so we dont have to fight them here†bullshit if it turned out otherwise…..
Comment by Vance — July 10, 2006 @ 11:00 am
It was just a four story building in which no one was killed (so far). I think the terrorists would aim bigger. They seem to get off on large attacks.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:06 amBuilding explodes, collapses in New York
A four-story building exploded, collapsed and burned in New York City this morning. At least five people were injured. Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta said a gas explosion appeared to cause the building collapse. The owner of the building was pulled from the rubble injured, but alert.
http://www.cnn.com
July 10th, 2006 at 11:14 am#10-Vance,
Have you read Suskind’s “One Percent Doctrine” book. I found it to be excellent. It shoots gigantic holes through much of the BS the admin spews regarding the “war on terror”, including this “fight them there” nonsense.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:14 am#12….Very true. Note to others,My post is what happens when you post before letting the coffee finish brewing. Have a good day all.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:15 amVance & unbelievable,
See my hard-hitting reporting on the building collapse on the ThinkFast AM thread. ;)
July 10th, 2006 at 11:16 amDrSinker
He scares the heck out of the right. He is actually intellegent, has integrity, and is willing to really fight for what he believes in. In a way he is everything Bush isn’t, thus they have spent more time since 2000 demonising Gore then they actually have running the country. This has an effect.
Hillary the right knows they can beat in a fair fight. A lot of leftwingers don’t like her either, in her bid for the middle she has landed up alienating both the left and the right, while coming across as a less then ideal candidate to those who are in the centre. The right knows that she isn’t a serious threat, though they also know she is paradoxically the next likely candidate from the Democrats. This is because, much as we like the Democrats, the Democrat leadership for the most part, is a trifle bit thick.
Fiengold would be something special. He is basically precisely the man America needs, but he is also precisely the same sort of man as Carter was. He is too principled for his own party, which means congress would fight him tooth and nail over every issue. This is a situation which is just as bad as the rubber stamp congress of Bush’s reign. While Fiengold would be a great president, he would need the help of the rest of the Democrats to reach his potential, and the rest of the Democrat leadership for the most part, is a trifle bit thick.
There needs to be a revolution from the Democrat base over the next few years. The Democrats need to learn that shooting for the middle isn’t going to win them any votes, and that trying to argue over things like war, torture, global warming, and the constitution with a “Well, maybe” isn’t going to cut it. They need to fight, and fight hard because over this last few years they have more then proven themselves harmless.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:20 amBush: “I think — I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused…” Let’s at least be thorough and show the rest of that sentence:
July 10th, 2006 at 11:28 am“…we ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives — one, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil for economic reasons and for national security reasons.”
Bruce,
I agree with most of your post. I also suspect many folks see Gore as the “smartest kid in the room” and are turned off by it. They see his recent movie as more along these lines. Then there are probably others whose hatred for Clinton and Hillary still spills over to Gore.
Regarding Feingold, I don’t know enough about him to make a fair assessment. I do like Obama, but realize he’s far too young.
I’m no fan of Hillary. I just don’t think she’s electable, and I’m not convinced her policies follow from any set of principles. She comes across as far too polished a pol, perhaps because she is.
I think the Dems big problem is they simply don’t know how to frame an argument/message to capture the heart of the American public. Remember “It’s the economy, stupid”? When was the last time the Dems crafted a message that had that sort of resonance?
July 10th, 2006 at 11:29 amDr. S: “I do like Obama, but realize he’s far too young.” – - I don’t buy the age barrier. Obama is dynamic, bright and as experienced and old as JFK. This electorate is so dense they’d overwhelming elect a Double-O ticket; Obama/Oprah.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:34 amHow about a Gore-Obama ticket? That would be a tough one to beat.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:36 amBruce,
I’m always inpressed by your intellect and logic. But, at the same time, I am equally appalled that you know this but most Americans don’t. Pretty scary when the most rational and knowledgable people on American politics are not Americans. And that the conservative response to those of us who bother to learn anything is frequently juvenile insults.
I wish more Americans bothered to learn half as much about America as you know.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:38 amAs I said on my own blog, saying there’s a debate about climate change and human activity is like saying there’s a debate about whether the Holocaust happened. Yes, there are a few nutjobs that deny both to promote their agenda, but that doesn’t mean there’s a serious debate as to whether the Holocaust happened. One day, our kids will look back and put Holocaust deniers and climate change deniers in the same category, and they should.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:38 am“…we ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives — one, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil for economic reasons and for national security reasons.â€
That in itself is the stupidity of Bush. How can you fix a problem if you don’t care to find out how it is caused? You can’t or if you do you are just guessing and hoping for the best and throw lots of time, money and effort in trying to make it better. Bad results follow bad reasoning. Anyone who follows an idiot that doesn’t want to explore the truth is a bigger idiot.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:43 am#14 Dr…..I have heard of the book but have yet to read it, thanks for the heads up.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:01 pmSo, Newsweek says Bush said something that is correct-global warming is largely a result of human activity-and if the Administration complains about it, it means that Bush is trying to prove that Newsweek lied when it said Bush was telling the truth…
Is that the definition of “meta?” I’m not sure.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:01 pmZooey,Im going to suggest to MSNBC that they hire you…..There was more truth and info in your “Reporting” on the other thread then in a days ration of the turd buffet they trot out daily. Thanks for the laughs.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:07 pmRight now, I’m leaning towards Feingold for Prez in ‘08. Ibwill vote for him or Green party or even Pee Wee Herman before I ever vote for any Republican-at ANY level.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:26 pmHey, there’s an asteroid about to hit the Earth, obliterating all life on the planet. But it wasn’t caused by us, so let’s just let it hit. Bring it on!
July 10th, 2006 at 12:27 pmJudd,
Having problems reading English?
Bush acknowledged back in June 2001 that the National Academy of Sciences believed climate change was “due in large part to human activity.”
Bush acknowledges the NAS stance on the issue. Does that mean he concedes to their view? Two different things. You can acknowledge that someone has a stance on something without agreeing with it. Apparently Judd needs to go back to school and learn some English.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:30 pmBush acknowledges the NAS stance on the issue. Does that mean he concedes to their view? Two different things.-Seixon
So your contention is that Bush disagrees with the NAS? Wouldn’t be the first time he’s stared science in the face and looked the other way (see: intelligent design).
Most people reading the article are not likely to make the distinction you have. Had Newsweek included his comment about the debate, it would be a different story. That’s the whole point.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:34 pmYou dont need to read too many comments posted on this site before it becomes very clear why we cant win elections in this country
July 10th, 2006 at 12:37 pmHalliburton Solves Global Warming
SurvivaBalls save managers from abrupt climate change
“An advanced new technology will keep corporate managers safe even when climate change makes life as we know it impossible.”
god, I really HATE them!
July 10th, 2006 at 12:37 pmBush will not sign the kyoto treaty in this lifetime for the same reasons your beloved baffoon prez before him did not sign it
July 10th, 2006 at 12:40 pmMadashell I think that is the Yes men. I don’t think that is a real article.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:43 pmKrazny – no – it’s real.
http://www.halliburtoncontracts.com/about/
July 10th, 2006 at 12:46 pmDrSinker,
So your contention is that Bush disagrees with the NAS?
“There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused.”
I think that speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
July 10th, 2006 at 12:46 pm“Bush is describing a debate that doesn’t exist. ”
So polite.
Bush lied again. Bush lies over and over and over…
Bush, clarifying the matter for us morons….
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
Perhaps, when another city drowns, he can keep repeating over and over and over…
July 10th, 2006 at 12:48 pm“You’re not drowning, you’re bathing”….
SurvivaBallâ„¢ Photographs and Video
July 10th, 2006 at 12:48 pmhow pathetic
July 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pmThere was more truth and info in your “Reporting†on the other thread then in a days ration of the turd buffet they trot out daily. Thanks for the laughs.
Comment by Vance
Thanks! *blush*
July 10th, 2006 at 12:51 pmMake sure you mention I don’t use lip gloss by the gallon…
“There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused.â€
I think that speaks for itself, doesn’t it?-Seixon
Indeed it does. I’m glad to see you acknowledge Bush’s ignorance on the issue.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:53 pmdefinition of ignorance = anytime you disagree with a lib
July 10th, 2006 at 1:01 pmIts not real.
here is the URL to the haliburton homepage.
http://www.halliburton.com/index.jsp
here is the URL to the article you refrenced.
http://www.halliburtoncontracts.com/index.html.
If you check, many of the links don’t work, and the other articles are just as improbable. It is a very good duplication, but it is not the real Haliburton.
Watch “the Yes Men” sometime. Great movie for a good laugh.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:02 pmhe must be even madder than hell now
July 10th, 2006 at 1:05 pmSeixon: “There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused.â€
Of course, Seixon defends George Deutsch, saying that there’s a debate over whether the big bang occurred or whether it’s just a theory like intelligent design.
Check out the comments:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/poor_superman.php
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/02/george_making_george_look_good.php
July 10th, 2006 at 1:13 pmSeixon: “There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused.â€
Of course, Seixon defends George Deutsch, saying that there’s a debate over whether the big bang occurred or whether it’s just a theory like intelligent design.
Check out the comments:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/poor_superman.php
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/02/george_making_george_look_good.php
July 10th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#42: The comment, “There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused,” speaks for itself, I suppose, but what do you glean from this comment?
Sure, “there’s a debate,” but it’s an ideological debate, not a scientific debate.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:21 pmre: 44 – fake indeed – fun, and pretty well done.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13568
The McDonald’s hack at Serious Games was genius as well….
July 10th, 2006 at 1:24 pmhttp://www.mcdonaldsinteractive.com/index.html
Of course Bush is out of the mainstream. In order for Bush to acknowledge science, and the unquestionable fact of global warming, he would have to put his religious dogma behind him. But when you let your religious magical thinking, and your oil company benefactors tell you what to do, you have to ignore science or there will be a conflict of interest.
It would be a conflict of interest for Bush to be part of the mainstream.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:31 pmBruse Gorton, I agree with your comments about Feingold. For these reasons, I’m hoping he’ll be seriously considered for Vice President. Then maybe at some future time…
July 10th, 2006 at 1:39 pmBUSH: I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem.
Probably it would be better for everybody if Bush never concedes that Global Warming is a threat. He would want to find Global Warming wherever he is and smoke him out of his cave.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:52 pmKrazny, of course it’s not really the Halliburton website. It’s a joke! Where is your sense of humor, man?
July 10th, 2006 at 1:55 pmSolitare,
I knew it was a joke. Madashell was confused, and I didn’t want him to think it was real. Check out “the Yes Man” if you want to know where my sense humour is.
=)
July 10th, 2006 at 2:01 pmJudd,
FYI, it should be the “intergovernmental” panel on climate change rather than “international” — see http://www.ipcc.ch
Thanks.
Tom
July 10th, 2006 at 2:20 pmI just read the article. It’s a pretty shoddy piece of journalism at best, but I wouldn’t necessarily characterize it as overly “pro-Bushâ€.
DrSinker – you’ve got to be kidding.
This is standard PR bullshit. Some unnamed ‘activists’ say so-and-so – no actual attempt to verify or dispute those claims – and then we get the other side – from Bush’s aides! There you have it: is Bush Green? Activists say NO! Aides say YES! You decide!
No mention that he’s the worst President on the environment – ever. Hands down. Nothing to discuss. Pick an issue. Do the math…
July 10th, 2006 at 2:24 pmcynic,
You may be right – perhaps I was too easy on them. Regardless, it’s a lousy article. Poor choice of sources, very incomplete picture, you name it. I just don’t necessarily have a lot of faith in the MSM’s basic competency these days. Shoddy journalism can read pro-Bush, there’s no doubt about it.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:42 pmA href=”http://www.environment2004.org/documents.php”>Shades of Brown.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:57 pmOops….Shades of Brown.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:58 pmActually, he kind of did and kind of didn’t it depends on which part of his self-contradictory statement you ignore to get it to make logical sense.
First, he did say that there was a debate over whether humans were responsible for global warming. But practically in the same breath, he said he was ’solving it’ by addressing human activity.
Like a lot of things the president says, Bush tried to play both sides of the field and wound up with an illogical statement that really didn’t mean a damned thing. So now, it’s like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction – a symbol that means whatever the viewer wants it to mean.
——
July 10th, 2006 at 4:54 pmhttp://griperblade.blogspot.com – grumblings from the heartland
MSMBC – the other Fox network.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
July 10th, 2006 at 7:25 pm===============
Agreed.
Olbermann is an anomaly.
[...] Not all of the top liberal bloggers employ “in the know” shorthand. Some of them write traditionally, but I just have a problem with what they’re saying. For example, Think Progress has a good post taking on a mistake in Newsweek regarding President Bush’s position on global warming: The most recent Newsweek has an article called “The President: Shades of Green,†examining the President’s environmental record. Newsweek reports that Bush has conceded human activity is responsible for global warming: And on global warming, the most controversial part of his green scorecard, Bush acknowledged back in June 2001 that the National Academy of Sciences believed climate change was “due in large part to human activity.†The dispute is what to do about that warming. [...]
July 10th, 2006 at 11:16 pmGood call. The man’s a liar, and his back-up, the msm, forgets which way is up. That’s always the case with liars.
Here the liars won’t be exposed because the ones who should do it are part of the lie.
We are so screwed.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:23 amSeixon said “the scientists agree that it is hard to figure out exactly how much humans have affected it, if any at all”.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:23 amThe lie in that statement is the “if any at all” part. They may not be able to pinpoint EXACTLY how much humans have affected the climate, but there is NO DOUBT in the collective scientific community that it is affectly it GREATLY. That’s clear to me, and to those on this site, and the more this rightwing troll tries to twist and turn the facts, the sillier he sounds.
Wiggle all you want. The change in climate will be a disaster for everyone, even you, Seixon. Then try to wiggle yourself out of that.
#66 Solitaire: Bootlickers don’t care about truth or facts. Rhetoric is their specialty. Just keep repeating the same thing over and over and either people will eventually believe it or they will eventually ignore it. Either way they win and get to move on to other things they can destroy or corrupt or steal.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:33 amAmerica – While there will of course be natural fluctuations in warming due to sun-related activity, it is a responsibility for the health of humanity to not exacerbate any warming. It seems that there is little doubt that there is a “greenhouse effect” from increased CO2 emissions (part of the reason why Earth is at a currently hospitable temperature), and so the ever increasing concentrations in the atmosphere are bound to increase temperatures. Even a slight change may push the climate past a tipping point which could cause problems for milennia.
Of course, there are innumerable other benefits that will come about from a switch to energy efficiency and clean technologies.
Lastly, if Gore was not even able to stand up for the election he won in 2000, I doubt he would have been (or will be) effective in changing environmental policy. He is doing his best work by trying to appeal to the people.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:38 pm[...] Add to this Newsweek’s despicable “Green Issue” portrait of George Bush, so riddled with outright lies I can’t even start: Okay — he did not propose the “first-ever cut in mercury emissions from power plants”; the Clinton administration’s “Maximum Achievable Control Technology,” had it remained in place, would have reduced power-plant mercury emissions by an estimated 92 percent by 2007; Bush’s “cap-and-trade” plan aimed at mercury would reduce mercury emissions from a current 48 tons per year to 34 tons by 2018. The plan was shredded by everyone from Sen. Jim Jeffords to Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe. That Newsweek, which used to be a decent magazine under the late Maynard Parker, would suggest otherwise is unconscionable. [...]
July 24th, 2006 at 4:33 pm