U.S. Climate Change Delegate: My Biggest Regret Is Not Putting More Spin On Bush’s Record
U.S. Climate Change Delegate: My Biggest Regret Is Not Putting More Spin On Bush’s Record
Currently, representatives from 190 countries are meeting in Poznan, Poland for an international climate change conference to work on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which President Bush refused to ratify in 2001.
In an interview with AFP in Poznan, Paula Dobriansky, the chief U.S. delegate, said that she has no regrets on the Bush administration’s climate change record. If she could change anything, Dobriansky said a better job could have been done in articulating Bush’s “message”:
I think this issue (climate change) is important, we care about it greatly. Looking back, if there was anything that maybe I would have hoped, it’s that we could have done a more effective job in getting our message out, in other words, (in) public diplomacy.
Spin couldn’t have saved Bush’s record on climate change. In fact, according to the annual Climate Change Performance Index published today, the U.S. is ranked as having the third worst record of 60 countries in tackling greenhouse gas emissions.
Dobriansky also praised Bush for his “evolving” position on climate change action, claiming Bush has moved toward multilateralism at the end of his term:
She added: “President Bush said very early on in his administration, ‘we will act, we will learn and we will act again.’ And our approach has been an evolutionary one. I think you have seen an evolution from the beginning of the administration to the present time.”
There has been virtually no evolution towards climate change multilateralism under Bush. In March 2001, Bush unilaterally repudiated Kyoto and has repeatedly rejected international climate agreements since. Today is no different. The U.S. is continuing to stall progress at Poznan, still opposing a global cap-and-trade system because it is allegedly “too costly.”
It is shameful — but not surprising — that the U.S.’s chief climate representative believes that Bush’s biggest mistake on climate change is bad PR.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Putting a spin on his dismal climate record won’t change the facts. He is the worst president ever on every thing under the sun.
WE WILL NOT ALLOW THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION TO REWRITE HISTORY.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:47 pmPR is all they do. They ignore governance and just work on the PR. This is the case in all branches of the Bush administration.
The problem is that the consequences of absent governance will inevitably pile up at an exponential rate, until within an eight year span it’s impossible to cover them with enough PR. I suspect they were hoping that everything could avoid falling apart until year 9, when they could just blame everything on the next administration.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:51 pmAs my daddy used to say, “there isn’t enough good dirt to cover that sh*tpile deep enough so it won’t stink”
December 10th, 2008 at 9:55 pmPaula also believes that we must torture and that the only thing she would change about that would have been to have better pr on the issue.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pmActually, she’s right. Perception is reality, after all!
Look at the countries with absolutely terrible records on environmental issues. They come out smelling like a rose because they know how to manage the message.
But, I digress. The REAL issue is that this entire “climate crisis” issue has been sold to unwitting dupes who really think it’s all about the earth’s climate! It is not.
Any of you heard of Maurice Strong. Do you know who he is and what he does. Do you know the nature of his relationship with Al Gore?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:09 pmAre my perceptions of Tim Vaculik realities?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:13 pmIf that were true our economy would be just fine right now. Remember the fundamentals of the economy, etc.
Oh, and she is wrong as are you. Just my opinion but so is yours.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:14 pmPresident Bush was opposed to Kyoto along with many in Congress and the Senate for very good reasons. Chief among them is that it would have severely impacted our economy.
Another good reason is the lack of sound science. I’m sorry, but a bunch of fat-ass bureaucrats, policy wonks, tin-horn dictators, and two-bit politicians getting together to concoct solutions to non-existent or unproven problems doesn’t mean we have to drive over a cliff with them!
December 10th, 2008 at 10:15 pmTim, why do you keep bringing up Al Gore? He’s got an opionion and a message. You don’t have to agree with it. He’s not part of the Obama administration.
Seems you just like talking about him, why is that?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:17 pmWhat part of your perception of reality includes these people and who exactly are you talking about?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:18 pmHere’s a few things I know for sure.
ANYONE who says the “science” is settled on predicting climate change is either a charlatan, a politician or a kool-aid drinker.
ANYONE who doesn’t embrace open dialogue and honest, scientific inquery into real climate science obviously has an AGENDA and it isn’t “saving the planet.”
December 10th, 2008 at 10:18 pmFred,
Al Gore is playing a very big role in the current “climate change” hysteria. I’m sure you can see this is true.
He’s joined at the hip with Maurice Strong and is actually doing quite a bit of work behind the scenes to line his own pockets at the expense of everyone else. Why do you think he doesn’t want a visible role?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:22 pmYou call it climate change hysteria…..but you said this earlier:
So I think there are plenty of people keeping the discussion honest. Why do you deny Al Gore a seat at the table?
Also, why do you begrudge him making money? I thought you righties thougth that that was all there is to life…..
You contradict yourself and provide no evidence to back up what you say. I don’t necessarily disagree with some of it but you just put it out there as fact….because you said so….not really worth much.
If it’s your opinion you should qualify it as such.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:26 pmFolks, here it is:
There is BIG, BIG money involved in the “climate change” issue. The proponents of man-made global warming have finally found a way to put a TAX on the engine of our economy; actually on any meaningful human activity!!!
You simply can’t do ANYTHING without a “carbon footprint” being created. Once the global warming crowd could vilify carbon as bad for the environment (which it clearly is not), then they could realize their goal of taxing human activity to make money; to control every aspect of a nation’s industry!
December 10th, 2008 at 10:27 pmI would argue that just the opposite could be considered to be equally true but that’s my opinion.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pmFred,
If you think AL Gore is one of the people keeping the debate honest, well …
December 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pmAnd it can be argued even more convincingly that what you describe is exactly what big oil monopolies have been doing in America for the last 30 or 40 years.
What’s your point?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:30 pmThe only scientists I know of that deny that human activities are negatively affecting our environment (in particular, activities like burning coal and fossil fuels), work for the oil and coal industries. They are paid to put forth an opinion, much as a lawyer is paid to put forth false arguments on behalf of his guilty client.
The matter is settled among ethical scientists.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:31 pmTim, if you think scientists on the payroll of bil oil are keeping the debate honest, well…..
see, this can go on forever. We need to get together and have an unbiased evaluation of facts. You don’t seem to be willing to do that. You have already made up your mind…..
I’m still thinking.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:32 pmI’m just trying to show the troll how foolish his arguments are Wayne. Of course you are right. But even if you don’t go there……the troll still can’t make a point……
The troll talks about perceptive reality and then proceeds to create one that he likes……no facts required.
That’s ok, you can have your opinion but don’t try to pass them off as facts and call us kool aid drinkers for thinking that you might be wrong tim.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:37 pmFred,
All I’m really saying on the “settled science” issue is that it should be obvious to anyone who does any serious reading that no one can say with certainty that mankind’s activities are leading to catastrophic climate change!
I think it’s clear that those who insist that this is true and that the science is “settled” on the issue have an agenda or something to gain financially or politically.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:39 pmWell, Fred, you know the old saying. “Opinions are like Tim Vaculiks. Everybody’s got one.”
December 10th, 2008 at 10:40 pmWayne,
Then you are not very well read, sorry. Where do you get your information?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:40 pmFred,
Sorry, pal. You haven’t been making any sort of case with facts either. Nice try.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:42 pmMy goodness, Li’l Timmeh sure has a raging chubby over climate change one tonight, dun’he?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:44 pmTim Vaculik Says:
——————————————————————————–
Here’s a few things I know for sure.
ANYONE who says the “science” is settled on predicting evolutional change is either a charlatan, a politician or a kool-aid drinker.
ANYONE who doesn’t embrace open dialogue and honest, scientific inquery into real climate science obviously has an AGENDA and it isn’t “saving the planet.”
Define “real climate science.”
December 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pmI do not have an agenda, nor do I stand to gain financially or politically. I believe that human activities are negatively contributing to the changes our climate is undergoing. The change is indisputable. (We get tornadoes in my part of southeastern New York every summer now, and forty years ago that was unheard of.) That humans pumping more carbon into the atmosphere impacts the environment negatively is likewise indisputable.
To paraphrase:
I think it’s clear that those who insist that this is not true and that the science is “not settled” on the issue have an agenda or something to gain financially or politically.
Good night, everyone. Good luck with the reality-denying trolls.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pmI know, I said it was my opinion. You’re the one that keeps saying things like:
and stuff like this:
Those sound like you have some kind of knowledgeable highground from which you quote. The truth is that you don’t and it is just your opinion.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:48 pmGnight Wayne. I’m not wasting much more time on him either.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:49 pm“You can’t polish a turd”
‘nough said about bush’s [cough] climate change policy.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:50 pmWayne,
“I believe…” Yes you do and that is your right.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:51 pmTim V.
Why do you care what Al Gore has to say? Why not learn the science? You are right, much of the science isn’t “settled” as you say. Science isn’t in the faith business, so you must provide evidence to make claims. Right now, most of the evidence suggests the earth is warming. That warming is strongly correlated with CO2. Please provide the evidence that the earth is not warming (on average). Please provide an alternative explanation supported by evidence that better explains the existing data. Please explain why the statistical certainty about climate change is increasing with further scrutiny and data? Please explain how Al Gore profiting off this climate change message affects the data being collected by independent scientists throughout the world. It is certainly fine to be skeptical, and of course science requires skepticism. But skepticism in science requires that your skeptical hypothesis be tested. So, please, again, provide evidence that your skeptical opinions are better explanations than others.
Oh, and your comment about carbon being bad for the environment is pretty weak. In some contexts, carbon is not a good thing (CO2 in your blood), while in others, it is (organic carbon in your food).
December 10th, 2008 at 10:54 pmFred,
Well, I do have a rather extensive body of knowledge I’m drawing from to form my opinions. It’s O.K. if you don’t agree, this is the good old U.S.A..
Just don’t tell me it’s O.K. for the folks with an opposite opinion to ruin our economy based upon a lack of sound science!
December 10th, 2008 at 10:54 pmThe Right are becoming more and more divided on global warming as the evidence pours in and their ranks continue to thin. Some on the right still deny there is global warming. Others admit to global warming, but deny we are causing it. The only thing they still agree on is that the scientists are wrong–natch.
As they cointinue to retreat, the right will start admitting to global warming, but will blame the liberals for it. You heard it here first.
And now for something completely bonkers:
December 10th, 2008 at 10:56 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSGLzStgujM
So timmy, do you deny that the planet is warming or do you credit it to natural cyclical changes?
Even if you do believe that it is a normal cycle that we are entering isn’t it worth investigating whether we might be contributing to the effect in a way that might accelerate it much more destructivly?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:57 pmtbone,
Excellent questions. The only one I have time for right now is the CO2 correlation issue. Remember the first rule of statistics – “correlation doesn’t prove causation.”
Remember the famous graph Al Gore put up? If you move the two graphs on top of one another you see that the rise in CO2 levels occurred AFTER the rise in temperatures! Scientists studying ice core samples have found the same phenomenon.
There is a lot more on this one subject alone, but I’ll have to come back later to post.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:00 pmWell, to that I would say that your side, the right has been overseeing our economy for the last 8 years and their bad judgement has put us in a very bad place….just what you don’t want someone else to do.
How can anyone’s judgement be worse than what you and your friends have exhibited in the last 8 years?
I say it’s time to entrust our economy with science believers instead of coprportate profiteers for a change…..how say yee?
December 10th, 2008 at 11:01 pmBefore I forget. Take a look at the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. Very enlightening.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:02 pmFred,
I’m with you at #35. By all means we should do as much research as possible.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:04 pmAnother PNAC’er that should hang her head in shame. Get ready to testify, Paula.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/2969.htm
December 10th, 2008 at 11:04 pmFred,
Of course I was talking about the long-term effects of putting a “cap and trade” system in place. Look at Obama’s goals of limiting CO2 emissions. Totally unrealistic.
Our economy will definitely take a huge hit over time under the schemes being perpetrated in the name of “science.”
December 10th, 2008 at 11:05 pmtimmy knows everything, he’s a scientist, doctor, lawyer, baker, banker, finance manager and a racist.
timmy earned his starched hood.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:09 pmI’m guessing that you are exactly right. It won’t be about global warming but the EPA under paula has plenty of “real” scientists ready to testify against her on multiple fronts.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:10 pmSeems my perceptions of Tim Vaculik are indeed positively correlated with available data
December 10th, 2008 at 11:14 pmchimpy’s legacy speaks for itself it reeks stank.
chimpy can’t change reality. he’s going have tons of books written rejecting his lies.
chimpy will continued to be a repug clown for the rest of his damned life.
Long after his demised jokes will keep on coming and his f-ups will take years to correct.
Thank God for President-ELECT Obama.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:14 pmThat is pure conjecture. It can be done in a way that will spur business and create jobs. it just takes capable people. We might have that now. Are you so sure we don’t?
Besides, our economy has just taken a huge hit under the scheme of unregulated free enterprise.
At least this is a noble goal and not about greed and with the distinct long term possiblility of freeing us of oil…..is that in itself not worthy?
Can you honestly not see the difference?
December 10th, 2008 at 11:14 pmYep, nothing to taint the sample on this thread. He was almost reasonable at 39 but he followed it up with the false flag that it would destroy our economy so that’s a push.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:17 pmProject for the New American Century Paula Dobriansky
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
December 10th, 2008 at 11:20 pmTV
Hence I said correlation and not causation. Unfortunately, we don’t have another planet to experiment with to more effectively assess causation. And, yes, there is some question about which curve precedes the other. That is a reasonable question. Some studies suggest temperature lags and others suggest the opposite. That is where the healthy scientific skepticism comes in. The question is being looked at. In our current situation however, CO2 has increased at a rate that is unprecedented in measured history. At this point, the temperature is lagging behind. So, if temperature changes precede CO2, why has that all of a sudden changed in the last 150 years?
Also, recent studies (sorry don’t have them on hand) have examined your solar question, and according to those studies, the solar output has not increased since 1978. Yet, temperature has continued to increase. The expected pattern of atmospheric warming due to increased solar radiation does not match the actual pattern of warming.
The problem is that you can easily come up with holes in the data, but it is not so easy to come up with a better explanation that is supported by evidence. When I see evidence supporting alternative explanations I will change my opinion. But bloviating about Al Gore and serious reading and real climate science is not evidence.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:33 pmFred:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:36 pmAt least from a jobs perspective, there is evidence that “green” technology creates jobs.
Amazing they were able to translate her quotes with her nose that far up Bush’s ass.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:40 pmTV:
December 10th, 2008 at 11:40 pmJust out of curiosity, at the start of the Bush II administration he was an ardent voice for more study (i.e. stalling). At the end of the administration, B II has acknowledged warming. So, with more study, it appears that Bush is shifting towards a climate change scenario. As RHF suggests, at what point do you start to act (especially considering lag times; CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for ~100 yrs.)?
tim?
tim…?
are you crying?
^
December 10th, 2008 at 11:45 pmJoe,
December 10th, 2008 at 11:47 pmI think he is calling Lord Moncton the journalist/climate expert.
“…the U.S. is ranked as having the third worst record of 60 countries in tackling greenhouse gas emissions…” Just like everything Chimy has ever touched, he comes in last. Chimpy is the only person in the history of the west texas oil patch to have never found oil. The list goes on from there. Ony 41 more days until that huge waste of protoplasm is gone from office. It can’t come soon enough.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:55 pmtbone,
just thinking about tim standing by
and doing nothing as freedom’s watch
died as slow, painful death fills me
with righteous anger.
*
how selfish.
tim,
you’re an excellent example of
what many have called the
cowardice of conservatism.
*
shame on you.
^
December 10th, 2008 at 11:58 pmHey, this is the Bush administration. And lets not use the word EVOLUTION in any context. This is the administration that forced scientists in the EPA to change their reports on climate change and anything else concerning rational science.
His position on anything regarding intelligence, science or rational thought is well known. He articulated his particular level of cogent thought very well. He tried his best to take it back to the 19th century. And he very nearly did. He made this country the laughing stock of the world in nearly every aspect of life.
And this woman speaking up for Bush now, is just a part of the last few months double speak. This is the reason Bush has been missing in action for weeks now. Outside of a few interviews he has done nothing but try and re-write what is the worst administration in the history of this country. He lives a delusional existence. And they all think if they keep on talking up this delusion, we will somehow forget the last 8 years. If the lie is loud enough, often enough they may figure they have a chance.
Mercifully, we still have interviews, and film etc. We certainly cannot depend on the truth and veracity of our media. They have been missing in action for years now.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:59 pmAnd we expected anything different from the BushCo Bunch?????
Give me a break!!!!!!
December 11th, 2008 at 12:08 amDobriansky said a better job could have been done in articulating Bush’s “message”:
How can you better articulate FU(K YOU, my boys got theirz!!!
December 11th, 2008 at 12:55 amCurlew Says:
“…the U.S. is ranked as having the third worst record of 60 countries in tackling greenhouse gas emissions…” Just like everything Chimy has ever touched, he comes in last. Chimpy is the only person in the history of the west texas oil patch to have never found oil. The list goes on from there. Ony 41 more days until that huge waste of protoplasm is gone from office. It can’t come soon enough.
I didn’t know that but nevertheless funny as hell in a stupidity sort of way. he is a complete idiot.
Do you have a list of little known idiotic facts (oxymoron) about chimpy? I would love to read them. :)
December 11th, 2008 at 1:16 amcurious at 61
You said it mate. he has tired to stagnant peace and progress.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:22 am“I think you have seen an evolution from the beginning of the administration to the present time.”
I thought these bozos didn’t believe in evolution. they need to pick a freakin lane with their “messages”
December 11th, 2008 at 5:43 amI am happy to report that the ROPE we will use to HANG bush will be made from 100% environmentally sound hemp. ANd afterwards, we will get its sister product marijuana to smoke off the 8 years of rape and pillaging this corrupt MUDDAFUGGA has done. Of course we will offer a huge bong hit to Columbia and Lady Liberty since the scumbag, Neo-con, traitorous, cabal called the boooooooosh administration has raped and sodomized them against their will repeatedly, just like Jeff Gannon does to Rover and GW, but they like it. Do you think Deadeye Dick just sits in the dark shadows watching and grimacing. I picture it like the back of the pawn shop in Pulp Fiction. They prolly take turns in the Whitehouse holding cell in the basement.
OH, I TRULY REVILE THIS CREATURE CALLED BOOOOOOSH.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:02 amLooking back, if there was anything that maybe I would have hoped, it’s that we could have done a more effective job in getting our message out, in other words, (in) public diplomacy.
Tim Vaculik Says:
Actually, she’s right. Perception is reality, after all!
Good to see that the TV is on-message. “Perception is reality.” That is a serious statement, with profound implications. And there is no qualifier. The TV heard the message that was intended, but has not paid attention these last years: that ‘message’ is merely the method and purpose of propoganda. You alter people’s perception of reality into something that YOU want them to believe: i.e. “SPIN”.
So, if perception IS reality, then the Chritians are right, and so are the Muslims, and the Jews, and the Church of the Sub Genius. They are ALL right, as they all perceive the truth of what they believe in. Furthermore, I am right in that I perceive that they are all wrong on most accounts of their perceptions. Wow. Talk about a chaos of potential realities colliding.
And that David Copperfield fellow — my, how powerful HE is, and his other magician friends. They actually CREATE perceptions, and so they must be like gods. Perception creates reality, without any qualifiers, supports all of the above.
Say, TV, have trouble finding ladies’ shoes that fit? There are special vendors for you, you know…
December 11th, 2008 at 9:18 amTim, let me ask a single question: What if we do nothing or we do too little to combat climate change, and it turns out we are wrong?
December 11th, 2008 at 10:11 amThis is the person we have leading our negotiations with other countries.
Excuse me, I need to go out and buy some more sunblock.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pmDoes she mean that when Bush articulated his policy with , “DUH” that it wasn’t clear and precise enough?
December 11th, 2008 at 7:29 pmIt is shameful that people like this live in America, let alone that they are given power. Her great grandchildren will live out her legacy, and should be made aware of her crimes for profit.
December 12th, 2008 at 7:46 am