Bush: Climate change is 'serious problem'

BREITBART.COM ^ | Jun 26, 2006

[Bernard Marx]

Actually, hydrogen fuel will just spew another greenhouse gas into the air. Dihydrogen monoxide.

Yeah, Washington's already being deluged by it today. He'd better be careful!

[Bernard Marx]

I think the President is making the appearance of going green, when in reality he is calling the left's bluff by championing alternative energies they have always hated

I agree. He's also immunizing himself from any political effects of Gore's new global warming movie. As I've said for years, if there's real warming (and I think there is, from a natural climate cycle) let's deal with it in practical ways. The human race has always survived through adaptation to changing circumstances.

Gore and his fellow Greenies have created a perfect opportunity to move forward with coal and nuclear. Put up or shut up, Greens.

[proud_yank]

Enviro-wackos and Dims need to stop blocking our access to domestic oil production

That is where the difference between 'environmental stewardship' & 'environmental protection' lies. Stewardship entails responsible or consciencious use, protection means no using.

Oil companies don't want to pollute, since pollution = lost profit.

[proud_yank]

The Asia-Pacific summit was based on 'technology transfer'. IMO, not necessarily a bad thing. India is a growing economy, and their emerging economy will improve living conditions there & increase trade with the US. China & others too.

What was the supreme court/EPA ruling?

[John Lenin]

Ther will be a case before the court about allowing states to regulate green house gases. The court decided to hear it.

[Paradox]

Cog, good to see you here.

I find it interesting to see that GW has undergone an evolution similar to what many other conservatives (myself included) have.

It is NOT "Conservative" to bury ones head in the sand. It is, however, to be skeptical of the hysteria. All in all, I see this move as a good thing. This "cause" can serve everyone well. Nuclear + renewable fuels will do much to help with the carbon problem, assuming it exists, and reducing the dependency on foreign energy sources, its a win-win!

I wish most freepers wouldn't be so reactionary against it, although I can understand their sentiments. Sentiments be damned, however, gotta look at the science. GW has gained some respect from me with this.

[pleikumud]

Global warming is caused by the sun, thankfully. But even a slight change in the sun could end life on earth. What humans do is of little consequence.

The so-called "global warming" trend is nothing but speculation. Weather experts have trouble predicting where a hurricane will be in two days, so for anyone to claim they know what the earth's average temperature will be in 2,5, 10, 25, 50 years or more is total rubbish.

In 1900 people were concerned about there being to much horse manure.

[Old Professer]

Once you feed a duck, its days of soaring with the eagles are over.

[Old Professer]

You're getting tiresome; it was never science's job to fix problems, that is best left to engineers and MDs.

What you and those you support in asking the American people to give up this modern world to maybe shave a decimal point off the global carbon budget is tantamount to having us extinguish a wildfire with a one-man bucket brigade.

[cogitator]

What you and those you support in asking the American people to give up this modern world to maybe shave a decimal point off the global carbon budget is tantamount to having us extinguish a wildfire with a one-man bucket brigade.

I support development of alternative fuel and energy sources (notably cellulosic ethanol and nuclear power), partly for the environmental benefits but mostly to strengthen our economy and national security. I also support increased energy conservation measures, incentives to encourage conservation, and development of more efficient energy use technologies.

I know I'm a radical.

[Paradox]

Global warming is caused by the sun, thankfully.

Apparently so, then that warmup causes an increase in CO2, which then reinforces that warmup.

In this case, we have sort of bypassed the initial warmup by increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere. That, or we are boosting the warmup that might already have been going on. Whatever the case, its probably a GOOD idea to start doing things to reduce CO2. That is a shift in my original, purely skeptical position. Why? One of the MAIN reasons is that even IF the GW proponents are wrong, and the science overall doesn't look that way, but even if they are wrong, we can jump on the bandwagon, and get alot of CONSERVATIVE things done. Nuclear power, renewable sources, lets get off of imported, foreign oil! Sounds good to me!

The problem with the GW "movement" is that it is largely driven by hysterics. No need for that, no need for the Luddites to have all the say. There are ways of dealing with the problem that can serve good ole American Conservative purposes.

[pleikumud]

"More than 17,000 scientists, to date, have signed a petition sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, refuting Gore's claims that global warming is human-induced. The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Your reply: Did you know that the signatures on the petition were not screened or monitored in any way, such that there are numerous fake and bogus signatures...

How could you possibly determine that any of the 17,000 + signatures are "fake" or "bogus"? You probably also think that Kerry won Ohio.

[cogitator]

How could you possibly determine that any of the 17,000 + signatures are "fake" or "bogus"? You probably also think that Kerry won Ohio.

Fake signatures were placed on the petiion deliberately to prove that there wasn't any screening taking place.

Oregon Petition

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

[proud_yank]

...and also that most of the "scientists" are MDs or engineers?

What is wrong with an MD or an engineer's opinion on the issue? A good friend of mine working on his PhD in civil engineering (avalanche mechanics), his advisor (also an engineer) has travelled to Antarctica a few times doing Global Warming™ ice-core research. I would find his opinion as an engineer to be quite valid.

BTW, he said that there is not enough known to conclude that humans have an impact on 'climate change'.

[proud_yank]

I wish most freepers wouldn't be so reactionary against it, although I can understand their sentiments. Sentiments be damned, however, gotta look at the science. GW has gained some respect from me with this.

I certainly agree with the use of nuclear power, and I do think that it is beneficial environmentally. I do not, for a second, believe that human activity & CO2 emissions are responsible for changing the climate.

The problem that I have with 'environmental-based incentives', is that they almost always produce a negative impact. For instance, tax breaks for solar power IMHO, would lead to more remote cabins being built, more roadways made, more fuel consumed to get to them, etc. It doesn't really cancel anything out.

I think that the best thing would be to remove a lot of the red-tape & regs, bring the price of fuel & utilities down, then people would have more $ to spend on a newer car which is unquestionably better environmentally.

Take a look at my profile if you like, I am active outdoors and is something I'm passionate about. As far as I am concerned, the more politicians preach about the environment, the more they'll do to screw it up.

[proud_yank]

LOL!

[proud_yank]

Oh goodie! Will those same states also vote to leave the Union???

What is this world coming to?

[dfwgator]

You can tell the climate is changing almost monthly. It was a lot colder just last December than it is now

Heck, it is already 20 degrees warmer here than it was just early this morning.

[cogitator]

What is wrong with an MD or an engineer's opinion on the issue?

There is nothing wrong with their opinion, but the petition represented the signatures as those of "scientists". While MDs and engineers are quite skilled and frequently quite intelligent, there is a distinction.

BTW, he said that there is not enough known to conclude that humans have an impact on 'climate change'.

I don't know when he said this, and I don't know what led him to make that statement, but the climate science community is in pretty good agreement that there is a human impact on climate observable (not necessarily accurately quantifiable) now.

[proud_yank]

What would you use to distinguish the difference between an engineer and a scientist? Granted, engineering is the study of science and its applications. However, an PhD in engineering focuses solely on science, theory, and research. I have a degree in materials science engineering, am I a 'materials scientist' or an 'engineer'?.

.... but the climate science community is in pretty good agreement that there is a human impact on climate observable (not necessarily accurately quantifiable) now.

There were many scientists who said that the earth was once flat too. Who makes up the bulk of the climate science community? The IPCC?? Personally, I would not trust anything UN-backed.

'accurately quantifiable', so does that mean that human activity could have a 'cooling effect'?

I believe that humans can have an effect on local climates through activities like de-forestation, Kilimanjaro for instance, as that is something that effects precipitation & the hydro-cycle. But do I believe that people are responsible for Global Warming™, not for a second.