U.S. Media Blows Coverage Of Bush’s Climate Speech, Needs Tutorial From International Press
U.S. Media Blows Coverage Of Bush’s Climate Speech, Needs Tutorial From International Press
After President Bush gave a speech yesterday outlining his energy and climate change strategy, the U.S. media quickly heralded Bush’s “new” policy as a “shift” from his previously dismal environmental record:
Washington Post: President Bush sought yesterday to take the initiative on global warming talks…signal[ing] a shift in the administration’s often-criticized approach.
New York Times: Bush, fending off international accusations that he was ignoring climate change, proposed for the first time on Thursday to set “a long-term global goal” for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. … It would be a major shift for Mr. Bush, who has resisted such absolute goals.
Los Angeles Times: Bush offers to take climate lead. The U.S. and other big emitters would set goals under his plan.
The reaction to Bush’s speech from the international community — whose ambitous proposal to reduce global warming Bush recently tried to gut — was “far from positive”:
The Guardian (UK): George Bush yesterday threw international efforts to control climate change into confusion with a proposal to create a “new global framework” to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Der Spiegel (Germany): US President George W. Bush seems confident that his climate change initiative will find broad support. But the first reactions out of Europe have been far from positive.
Deutsche Welle (Germany): European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has sharply criticized plans outlined by US President George W Bush to cut greenhouse gas emissions, saying the United States needs to set more ambitious goals.
The international press got it right. Bush did not mention the words “global warming” once yesterday, yet the U.S. media reported as if he did. Furthermore, Bush’s plan “listed no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism and no penalties for noncompliance. It also wouldn’t take effect until four years after Bush leaves office.”
Instead, Bush’s policy would continue the ineffective policy of voluntary caps on emissions. White House science adviser Jim Connaughton, who oversaw the elimination of references to global warming in White House documents, summed it up: “In this instance, you have a long-term, aspirational goal.”
More at Gristmill and Climate Progress.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The media are complicit with the regime. Many of them are traitors.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pmChimpy is just postponing any real action on global climate change until after he leaves office.
The Europeans aren’t going to put up with this crapola. They want action NOW, not another year and a half of talking.
Chimpy is a whore for Big Oil and a global warming denier.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pmWhy would I listen to a bunch of foreigners? I’m the commander guy. I get to decide what is and is not proper.
What’s wrong with voluntary caps anyway? They make things voluntary. I suppose the rest of you are for slave like regulations that make it nearly impossible for big business to rape the planet on a daily basis. As if I’ll ever let that happen. You people forget, I don’t believe in science. Hence the reason I can say that we are making progress in Iraq.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pmAh! Globalism. Here it comes.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:13 pmmust we suffer this fool any longer?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pmWatch Bill Moyers “Buying the War” on PBS. The US Media has long been hogtied and in cahoots with this admin. since 9/11. The days of intrepid reporters (’deep throat’) — are becoming almost extinct.
Now what we have are ‘pundits’ (see : Glenn Beck, O’Reilly etc) — Now we have professional pundits disguised as journalists.
The Media today are either afraid of ths admin and are cowards or they part of Cabal Crime Network.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pmWe obvioulsy look like jack-asses to the rest of the world thanks to this re-nob.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pmNo concrete target dates, eh? BushCo just can’t make a commitment to anything definite. “We’re affecting the climate over there so we have our climate everywhere.” These guys say they create their own reality so it follows that they think they can create their own climate.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:21 pmEuropeans are traitors to American values. They should go back where they came from.
That’s just “Old Europe” talking.
Look over there! Al Gore getting into his plane!
June 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pmWhat liberal media?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pmLOL! I WOULDNT LET BUSH LEAD AN OLD LADY ACROSS THE STREET!
June 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pmAnd the lemmings continue to jump off the cliff, joyous at the sensation of “flight” but curious as to the source of the constant and repetitive sounds of “splat!” that seem to be getting louder and lou…..(splat!)
June 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pmLook there’s RoboTroll 3000 talking out of his/her a**hole!
June 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pmShould we really listen to Europe on any subject? Including this pathetic cult.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pmPrima facie evidence of a complicit, sycophantic, whoring media who cannot be trusted any longer. Thankfully, the public is recognizing this fact and will make the US media whores obsolete and totally irrelevant.
Other than a total troglodyte, can you name one individual who hasn’t come to the realization that the media is corporately owned neonazis?
Most intelligent people are shunning the mainstream media now and the trend will continue exponentially rendering the likes of Fox, CNN, and the rest obsolete sources of valid, honest information.
This “rendition” of Bush’s comments makes such a case for all to see for themselves.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pmFortunately, the European media is far from sycophantic Bushmongers and can provide americans with the Truth about themselves. They realize that we’ve become a bunch of lying crooks and demons – it’s only the brainwashed american fools who still believe otherwise. This time period WILL go down in history, though – as THE WORST GOVERNMENT EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. That’s patently and painfully clear.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pmShould we really listen to Europe on any subject? Including this pathetic cult.
Comment by Patrick1 — June 1, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
If we’d listened to them in 2002 and 2003 we wouldn’t be mired in Iraq.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pmTake the initiative? Proposed for the first time? Offers to take climate lead? Just exactly who are these people pandering to? Where is the simpleton who believes this crap? No matter how hard they try, it is impossible to make Bush look good as far as the environment is concerned. He’s simply going through the motions and has no plans whatsoever to meet any kind of goals. It’s all lies and disinformation.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pmShould we really listen to trolls on any subject? Including this pathetic Patrick1?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pmUtilizing this one case scenario, need anyone say more to convince an already-disgusted, distrusting public that the mainstream media has anything but spin, lies and blatant bullshit to peddle?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pmLook there’s RoboTroll 3000 talking out of his/her a**hole!
Comment by Kay
It’s a parody, Kay. :-)
June 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmThis announcement is a deliberate ploy to throw the European effort at doing something into disarray, thus neutralizing the criticism against the corporate criminals who run this country.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmFortunately, the rest of the world is more intelligent than we are; fortunately, the rest of the world is more “authentic” than we are; and fortunately, there are many americans who recognize that had we listened to the 53 warnings from countries around the globe about the imminent attacks on 911, we would not have the dying democracy we currently have. Fortunately, there are still some intelligent americans among us; unfortunately, they are not the crooks holding public office.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pmTom3 has it. This is nothing more than a delaying tactic. Apparently Shrub believes that the world will continue to wait for the United States to take the lead in all substantive global concerns. Guess what, Dumbya? That may have been true in 2000, but you and your crony thugs have done your work well. Can a nation be considered a leader if no one follows?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pmGod, can these people be any more idiotic?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pmHow about some European news:
A GERMAN BRAIN DRAIN: ” For a nation that invented the term ‘guest worker’ for its immigrant labourers, Germany is facing the sobering fact that record numbers of its own often highly-qualified citizens are fleeing the country to work abroad in the biggest mass exodus for 60 years. Figures released by Germany’s Federal Statistics Office showed that the number of Germans emigrating rose to 155,290 last year – the highest number since the country’s reunification in 1990 – which equalled levels last experienced in the 1940s during the chaotic aftermath of the Second World War. . . . Fed up with comparatively poor job prospects at home – where unemployment is as high as 17 per cent in some regions – as well as high taxes and bureaucracy, thousands of Germans have upped sticks for Austria and Switzerland, or emigrated to the United States.” Seems like the more socialist the country, the more its talented citizens tend to go elsewhere.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pm#23,
An accurate assessment for the most part but rather generous when assigning culpability.
In your view the American intelligentsia is not to blame because they have been fooled and outsmarted by the lying thieving crooks holding public office into becoming complicit in murder, oppression, genocide, and the rape and sodomization of the Constitution.
Yup, that holds water.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pmPatrick1,
you’re right, why should we take into account the Europeans who have cultures and governments hundreds of years OLDER than ours and have dealt with issues (immigration, health care, terrorism) for far longer than we have?
Get real man. An impossibility for you most likely, but you should at least try not to be so jingoistic ALL the time…
June 1st, 2007 at 1:56 pmBush’s plan “listed no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism and no penalties for noncompliance.
Isn’t this the Iraq Funding bill they just passed? Voluntary Benchmarks and no consequences. I think they just erased Iraq Funding and penciled in Bush’s Climate Law.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pmThis is very similar to the attitude they have about fixing the problem by introducing hydrogen as an alternative vehiclue fuel. They like this because it implies that we can push the problem out a few years and deal with it then. In the meantime, let’s keep doing what we’re doing and see if we can set yet another record of quarterly profits for Exxon. In other words, we’re taking the same real action as if we were denying the problem completely.
Of course, there are many concrete things that we could be doing today to reduce emissions. Things that certainly won’t wreck our economy like our trolls will claim. For example, I’ve been driving a Prius for the last two year and it meets over 99% of my transportation needs. This is a simple thing that could greatly reduce our emissions. There are many other examples that Bush is not talking about in the slightest.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pmAgain, I ask the dumbass trolls, why would a “liberal media” perform like this?
June 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pmChimpy is just postponing any real action on global climate change until after he leaves office.
Comment by Tom3 — June 1, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
I disagree with this slightly. It implies that the next president will actually do something about the problem. That remains to be seen. Democrat or Republican, I think we will need to protest loudly to get our government to take concrete steps to resolve the issue. Gore in office would help the process. I still think he’d need help from millions of us to show each and every elected official, from the local to the federal level, that we insist they take concrete steps to resolve this issue.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:10 pmDo the repubs realize that if global warming continues beyond control there won’t be a planet left to rape and pilage?
They remind me of the Dodo birds — they wouldn’t come in from the rain and became extinct.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pmMister Unaccountable! No benchmarks, no time lines, no laws. This sure sounds famliar and we all know the fiasco it causes. Bush the ultimate spinning politicians really should just stick to telling his pig and fart jokes.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:22 pmThis cult is pretty funny.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pmMcClatchy’s D.C. Bureau Claims It’s Barred From Defense Secretary Plane
By Joe Strupp, Editor and Publisher
May 23, 2007
NEW YORK Staffers at McClatchy’s Washington, D.C., Bureau — one of the few major news outlets skeptical of intelligence reports during the run-up to the war in Iraq — claims it is now being punished for that coverage.
Bureau Chief John Walcott and current and former McClatchy Pentagon correspondents say they have not been allowed on the Defense Secretary’s plane for at least three years, claiming the news company is being retaliated against for its reporting.

“It is because our coverage of Iraq policy has been quite critical,” Walcott told E&P. He added, “I think the idea of public officials barring coverage by people they’ve decided they don’t like is at best unprofessional, at worst undemocratic and petty.”
***Yet another example of Bushco. neutering the media.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pmGlobal Warming is due to solar activity and NASA has proven it is occuring on Mars and Juipiter. Conspiracists here on TP feel that isn’t “science”. I’m just curious how many on here think the moon landing was staged?
Global Warming is another socialist power grab to control the masses. It’s so funny to listen to the conspiracists here worry about Orwellian society and can’t see that they are the goose-stepping fascists out to control everyone.
As ice melts, we see evidence underneath that glaciers and ice have been expanding and retracting since time immemorial. But no, TP conspiracists see it as Bush wanting to make more money with oil. Bush is the buzzword for lefties so they can take away more freedoms. Forget the Patriot Act, Global Warming dwarfs that in comparison.
Gore is the anti-christ. lol
June 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pm“the corporate criminals who run this country.
Comment by jim — June 1, 2007 @ 1:41 pm”
Umm, Jim? This is not a country… Its the internet. It makes me laugh that most American think that they are the only ones in it. We’re all in here together. Just like we are all in the same climate. And while I agree with what you say, Bush really doesn’t need to do anything (accept breath) to screw up any climate talks…
Bush is going to drag his feet and talk a lot on nothing. His is going to try to set any plans to kick in after the next US government is NOT in office, because he knows that the Democrats have a good chance of winning and he wants there hands tried buy rope that he made.
We have the same type of a**holes running our country (Canada). I’d like to see all Conservative (Republican) governments outlawed. From what I’ve seen over the last 6 years, they are for corporations… I wonder if a corporation needs to breath?
As for “corporate criminals”… That’s just plain redundant!
June 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pmNow,Now….we all know baby bush is the ummm,errr,decider….awwww,ha,ha,ha….
June 1st, 2007 at 3:04 pmAnd after mushroom clouds,we are suppose to believe anything this fool says…NOT
Satyam falsely claims that Bush’s policies are ineffective, but here’s the facts:
US GHG emission growth rate from 1990-2000 averaged 1.7% per year, from 2000 to 2005 (latest data) the growth rate is less than 1%.
Meanwhile US population, GDP and energy consumption has grown at much greater rates.
As for Joe Romm at ClimateProgress, he has proven to be a liar. He once claimed:
“in 2000, carbon dioxide emissions were rising less than 1% annually.” and that “growth of CO2 emissions since 2000 were 2.5%”, and it was Bush’s fault.
No. Avg growth rate per year in the 90’s was 1.7%. The growth rate in 1999 was about 3%!!!! Avg growth rate per year since 2000 is a little over 0.5% per year.
Meanwhile, the European Community’s GHG emission growth rate since 2000 is 2.4%!!!! Hardly credible critics of US policy I’d say.
Furthermore, Power Sector CO2 emissions per unit of electricity produced grew at it’s largest rate in the 90’s, exceeding 1990 levels. Since 2000 Power Sector CO2 emissions per unit have dropped below 1990 levels.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:09 pmjust happened onto this… someone else picked up on it:
Bush’s Climate-Change Feint
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, June 1, 2007; 2:04 PM
The White House yesterday showed that it still knows how to play the American press like a harp.
President Bush yesterday put forth a new proposal on climate change that is most newsworthy for its attempt to muddy the debate about the issue and derail European and U.N. plans for strict caps on emissions.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm[...]
For a more pointed view of Bush’s statement, let’s travel across the Atlantic, where the style of journalism is less constrained than in the States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/01/BL2007060101230.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
…
i also noticed the fortuitous ability to position a(n almost) picture of dear bill clinton (reminder! it’s a two-fer!) into the thread… good job!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/print/asectionfrontimage.html
i guess it’s way too late to hope for a haircut for billy graham…
June 1st, 2007 at 3:30 pmquite the throwback, 19th century look… he’s only 88…
only 88…
marin hippie
You sound like someone who has a lot of usefull facts. But lets face it, you’re full of Bush! You want to ground the debate in “what ifs”, “contrary facts” and finger pointing.
We are all in the same boat and you want to argue about who made the bigest hole it, instead of trying to fix the hole.
Are people on your planet ever going to realize that somewhere in the next 50 years we are going to reach a point where we will not be able to fix it. And that point could be tomorrow for all we know. Everyone in the denial camp points out that the science is not accurate enough to set a date and that caps are not needed. Here is your own argument back… The science on global warming is not accurate and the point of no return could be tomorrow for all we know.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pmGlobal Warming has been confirmed by NASA to be occuring on Mars and Jupiter and Earth due to solar activity. Conspiracists on this website don’t like that and claim it is not “science”. It doesn’t fit in with this powergrab to socialize the world. These are the same folks who talk about Orwellian society but either pretend or cannot see their participation to lock down freedoms under the guise of this alarmist pseudo science. It makes the Patriotic Act look like a picnic.
As ice melts and glaciers subside, evidence continues to show it has been going on for millenia – retraction and expanding. I won’t do a thing about greenhouse gases until the cows stop farting and the martians agree to do the same. I love my huge Yukon and sometimes leave it running just to irritate you conspiracists.
I’m just curious how many conspiracists here also believe the moon landing was staged?
Gore is the anti-Chris*. Lol
June 1st, 2007 at 3:43 pmI had to “just laugh” when I picked up the paper this morning. This story was so skewed by the US press I just wanted to throw it down and get on with the day.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:49 pmgwb just wants to jump to center stage at the 8 summit. He has no plan but to leave a fucked up mess for the next administration. Just who will his “heck of a job boy” be this time? Maybe the head of NASA? Certainly, the scientists would not be able to interject meaning to the process.
This “put on” is a certain sham. And everyone in the international community reconizes it. But here in the good old US our media borders on the likes of the Russian media, completely controlled.
George is a number 1 phoney and so is the US press.
It’s all about controlling the message…
June 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm“You gotta’ kinda’, you know catapult the propoganda”.
This is just so sick & comical!!! Why do they continue to give this known liar a microphone??? The amazing thing is if you actually read the articles it’s as if they were written by the Whitehouse with built in deniability very carefully
placed.
Bush could say he wanted to cut fossil fuel use entirely out of the U.S. economy…doesn’t mean HE really means any of it though. This guy vomits B.S. even in his sleep.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:52 pmPiper,
June 1st, 2007 at 3:56 pmCanada’s GHG emission rate is much higher than the US (26+% since 1990, compared to US’s 1+% since 1990). Seems to me you should be more concerned about your own country.
Eric
You, being an America would know about fredom? You being an American know about charity. You being an America know about not worrying if you are sick…
WTF do you know!!! Nothing.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pmExcuse me, US growth rate since 1990 is around 16%, about 1.3 since 2000. Canada’s growth rate is 26.6% since 1990, 4.6% since 2000. Essentially twice as much as US rates.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pmThey say action speaks louder than words. Those who think we should do something about it advocate for some kind of action. Eric, marin hippie and the other doubters say, in one way or another, that NOTHING should be done. What’s at stake here is the future of our planet. Somehow, I think taking concrete action sounds like a good idea. Why can’t we do something to work with car makers to increase the overall efficiency of the cars we drive? That would actually reduce our dependency on Middle East oil. Sounds like a good idea to me. Oh no, let’s listen to Eric and just pretend it’s a problem that is not ours to deal with at all!
June 1st, 2007 at 4:09 pmVinnie – you missed my point completely like usual. You cannot “change” something you have no control over. The Sun is very fickle and has a mind of it’s own. We can’t stop hurricanes either, no matter how hard we try.
I do want to change our dependence on Middle East Oil. That is a problem we can tackle. Global Warming? Follow the money……..Gore is awash in it.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pm#42 Eric, anyone who knows me here knows I don’t talk to or debate with trolls. However when the topic turns to astronomy I have to jump in. MARS has a flimsy atmosphere. And Mars has no life, plant or otherwise. Please explain how you can have Global Warming without an atmosphere to retain solar energy, no life and no unfrozen liquid? Mars is a better example of the opposite of Global Warming…Global Freezing. And the entire planet of Jupiter is clouds and gas. I don’t know if you could accurately measure or gauge an increase in heat or greenhouse gasses on a planet composed entirely of gas. Could you please provide a link to your information so I can review it?
The planet we should be focusing on is VENUS. Venus is a planet where Greenhouse/Global Warming has gone mad. The thick choking atmosphere retains all the heat/solar energy. That’s why its even hotter then Mercury which is much closer to the sun. We can learn where we may be heading by studying Venus.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pmEric,
I get your point completely. I completely disagree with it and didn’t feel the need to bring it up. I believe, as do most of the climatologists that aren’t in the pay of the oil companies, that mankind is responsible for the increase in CO2 emissions which is causing the recent heating of the earth that we’re seeing.
My point was not to debate your argument. (I would just point you to the many scientific organizations that have taken a position on the above.) My point was that ALL of the arguments by your and your type lead to actions that do nothing, which coincidentally, would help the oil companies continue to make their record setting profits.
I love the tactic of saying that those proposing action on global warming are greedily seeking profits off of the controversy. It’s so obvious that Exxon and company are the ones with the financial ax to grind. (Didn’t Inhofe actually suggest that the Weather Channel was trying to boost their ratings.) It’s so Rovian putting your own faults onto your opponents (like Bush saying the Dems are playing politics).
June 1st, 2007 at 5:45 pmWe can certainly trust the Marin Hippie. He works for the oil industry so he must know the truth. Kind of like how we could trust the “scientists” at the Tobacco Institute about how cigarettes didn’t cause lung cancer.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pmEric: “Follow the money……..Gore is awash in it.”
OK, that’s just plain stupid. Exxon just posted the largest quarterly profits in the history of corporate profit reporting. The energy industry is the most profitable industry in America today. Gore’s “profits” on his book, movie and speaking fees are a drop in the bucket compared to the money involved in the perpetuation of fossil fuel energy. Gore may be in the millions. The energy industry profits are in the hundreds of billions. Man, wise up!
June 1st, 2007 at 6:49 pmGore has donated all of his profits from the movie to various environmental causes. If Gore is doing this as a profit-making venture, he’s sure not doing a very good job of it. Still, the trolls like Eric will try to twist things around as usual.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:08 pm#52
“We can certainly trust the Marin Hippie. He works for the oil industry…”
You’d be surprised who I work for, I’m an earth scientist that DOES NOT work in the oil industry.
Bluedog chooses a slur for lack of an argument or facts.
BTW, Gore made out big when he helped Occidental purchase Elk Hills in Cali while he was VP. You know he owns Occidental stock don’t you. Of course, it was moved into trust funds for himself and his children before he ran for president. Wise up.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:09 pmYes, Gore is a wealthy man. That is well known. However, he is donating money from his recent activities. In any event, NONE of this changes anything about this science of global warming.
You may not work for the oil industry but, like it or not, you are acting just like someone who does.
And my original point still stands – Do you recommend that we take any action on climate change? Or can we just ignore it as Bush and your other rightie friends would like?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:21 pmData shows that we are taking action. GHG Emission data proves it. We have GHG emission growth rates by more than half compared to the 1990’s. James Hansen called for a slowing of emission growth rates initially (over next couple of decades). He knows it’s impossible to reverse GHG emissions when US population, GDP, energy production and consumption, etc are increasing at rates much greater than GHG emissions.
The US GHG emissions growth curve is flattening, just as Hansen called for. It’s not by accident. That’s an inconvenient fact that you choose to ignore.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:45 pmAs I pointed out, the main conclusion from your post is that we should do nothing? Let me ask my questions again.
Do you recommend that we take any action on climate change? Or can we just ignore it as Bush and your other rightie friends would like?
I was able to find the following link from an EPA study. Your argument is basically that we are still increasing the GHG emissions but the slope of the curve is coming down. Maybe in 10-15 years this trend will mean that we’re reducing our GHG emissions. I’m sorry, that’s not very much progress.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/07ES.pdf
Studies have shown that we need to act much better than this if we want to stave off the worst effects of global warming. Sorry, I forgot that you don’t like scientific studies that don’t favor your point of view.
Maybe the best way to settle this is you give me a list of the action items that we have taken to achieve the great success you’re talking about. I’m waiting …..
June 1st, 2007 at 8:58 pmSince you reference Hansen as one of your own, I thought I’d add that he’s the one who’s claimed that the government is not allowing accurate information on climate change to be disseminated to the public:
“In my more than three decades in the government I’ve never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public,” says Hansen.
Here’s from another article noting Hansen’s opinion on the topic:
“Global warming is a critical emergency. NASA scientist James Hansen projects that humanity has less than 10 years remaining to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If we don’t a global tipping point will be breached, which will result in catastrophic weather pattern changes. He thinks this climate shift will cause the earth to become a “different planet†not seen since our species evolved.”
From Hansen himself:
“The proposed reduction of vehicle emissions is only a first step, if large climate change is to be avoided. Vehicle emissions must decline even further within a few decades.”
So, sounds like you’re the one being deceptive. And, as easily predicted, your attitude is to minimize the magnitude of the problem.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:08 pmEither you are with the President in the global war on “climate change” or you are with the terrorists.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:24 pmAh! European hatred towards George Bush. This has become such a cottage industry in Europe and amongst the secular progressives and liberals in America. Lets see, the American economy over the last 6 years has been great. The Stock Market is booming. Unemployment is at 4.2% which is lower than the 1990s dot.com boom. Bush has tripled aid and assistance to Africa during his administration. Bush and Blair have shown the foresight and COURAGE to take on Islamic Fascists! US foreign aid to poor countries throughout the world and countries suffering through disasters exceeds the aid offered by the rest of the world combined. Multimillions of people are fighting to get into America leaving their glorious homelands behind. Now Bush has challenged the rest of the world to take on climate change in a fiscally sensible manner. Have I left anything out. Oh, America has provided as much or more financial aid to the Palestinians during the Bush administration than all Muslims countries while their propoganda is down with America, enemy of the Palestinians. Yeah I guess Bush has been a failure in a quite successful manner. Wait, that doesn’t make sense. How can you be such a success if you are such a failure. Let the Europeans figure it out. They know everything.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 amVinnie,
“As I pointed out, the main conclusion from your post is that we should do nothing?”
No, you’re beating the straw dog. We have been doing something. It’s no accident that the US has cut its emissions growth rate practically in half since the 90’s. As evidence I provided this devastating fact earlier;
Power Sector CO2 emissions per unit of electricity produced grew at its largest rate in the 90’s, exceeding 1990 levels. Since 2000 Power Sector CO2 emissions per unit have dropped below 1990 levels. (source: epa ghg emissions inventory 2006).
How’s that for results? That is huge. Read it again Vinnie. That is due to government policies and research agencies (see NREL, Lawrence Livermore) and innovations from universities and the private sector that have been developed over years (see MIT, Utility Co’s). You haven’t been paying attention. You’re getting all of your info from places like thinkregress. You think nothing is being done, when it really is. More needs to be done, but you are ignorant if you think nothing is happening.
Then this from Vinnie,
“Maybe the best way to settle this is you give me a list of the action items that we have taken to achieve the great success you’re talking about.”
Well, if actually read the document that you linked you’d find plenty in there, including the data I provided. But get a little deeper than the summary next time. If that’s too much for you then just refer to table ES-9 in your summary link. And be sure to take in Fig ES-3.
“Studies have shown that we need to act much better than this if we want to stave off the worst effects of global warming.”
Show me a study. Waiting…
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 amHansen
“It’s not too late to stop and avoid the worst consequences. But we would need to get on the scenario in which we slow down the rate of growth of greenhouse gases, get that to flatten out.â€
CO2 emissions growth rate from fossil fuel combustion in last reported year (2005) is less than 1%.
Yes James, slow down the growth rate, get it to flatten out. We’re on our way.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:51 am“Aspirational goals”? Like “I wish I had the body of a twenty-year old again”?
I am going to aspire very hard all day. By evening, the flab may have disappeared, and the wrinkles vaporized.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 pmI don’t care what your political persuasion is, global warming is too steep a hill for a president to climb. There has to be a national vote on climate change; it’s too potentially disasterous a question for any political figure to take upon himself.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:39 pmEither the whole of us are informed… fully informed, and then let the voice of the people speak directly, or do nothing.
Let it be answered by the only consensus that matters.
hey mikey, post #61, care to cite your source for all the glorious information you provided for the nice people?
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmRe: # 66 – “CO2 emissions growth rate from fossil fuel combustion in last reported year (2005) is less than 1%.”
A recent news report mentioned the slowdown in US CO2 growth rates was due to a warm winter and a cool summer, rather than any change in usage or policy.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:41 am#44… #
“Global Warming has been confirmed by NASA to be occuring on Mars and Jupiter and Earth due to solar activity. Conspiracists on this website don’t like that and claim it is not “scienceâ€.”
And this information made it through bush and his editors? You know Bush, the guy who:
Edited Scientific documents so Global Warming was nothing but a warm summer day?
The guy who attacked the sovereign nation of Iraq, all on the premise of looking for Weapons of Mass-destruction. And after finding nothing allowed a US puppet government to MURDER the previous leader of that country to try and hide their original sin of invading.
Is that the same Bush?
June 26th, 2007 at 2:52 pm