Climate Action Report 2002(NYT's Bush's U-Turn report)

US. EPA Global Warming ^ | May 2002 | Various EPA studies

[rwfromkansas]

I doubt the media will report this section. Thanks for posting these sections for folks like me who aren't too intersted in reading a bunch of jargon in a huge report like this. If the media does start a smear campaign, let's fax these sections to the media and see if they will bother to do something called balanced reporting. It IS their responsibility.

[bloggerjohn]

More stifling heat waves? Adapt? Good Lord, I live in Florida. I'm about as adapted as I can get.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

Does this mean you don't love me anymore?

No, just that I never did. lol. (you asked for it)

You know, I should have paid closer attention when my husband told me that Venus and Mercury were closely aligned and bright in the sky tonight. I don't know what it means, but these pings are a bit goofy tonight. :)

[WIMom]

Well, well, well, we don't the naysayers on this thread, now do we? No siree. Zilch, nada, zippo. There wouldn't be an agenda right here in River City? Nah.

[JerseyHighlander]

H.Con.Res. 83

The Senate Budget Resolution, passed in the nature of a substitute for language in H.Con.Res.83, included S.Amdt. 249, sponsored by Senator John Kerry, to restore funding for programs related to global climate change to the funding level of $4.5 billion over 10 years, primarily for existing programs. Among the purposes identified by the amendment were “addressing global climate change concerns...promoting domestic energy security....to provide increased funding to ensure adequate U.S. participation in negotiations...pursuant to the Senate-ratified U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change...” and other purposes.

Passed by the Senate April 6, 2001. See Congressional Record p. S3641. From this PDF file

[5by5]

I wonder if we've found the price of Europe's cooperation for the war on terror.

[William Terrell]

...it does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases.

What kind of changes would be considered a non-major shift, and where would that kind of shift put us in respect to global warming accords? Yes, I saw your post, deport. Sorry to be so cynical, but I've seen such statements before and watched something rather different happen.

I'd be happy to believe otherwise, that the libs are running this to slice support from Bush's base. But to tell you the truth, I haven't seen one ounce of government weight reduction, not one rescinsion of Bubba's most intrusive and frightening EO's, no indication of reigning in the insane drug war, any reduction of expensive, intrusive and offensive executive agencies, or any redirection of executive efforts away from the status quo of a rapidly developing socialist forces. I do see a very disturbing event, the redefining of federal policy toward citizens and firearms, the effect of which may just be the strategy to keep Emerson out of the SC.

[jla]

With this wide open airing (curteous NYT), it becomes a great foil to sow doubt in Bush's base as the the president's commitments on politically charged issues.

I'll give ya odds this is true. (The Bush admin. has already backpedaled on "global warming" months ago, and lo & behold!, now no offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico)
And as far as "sowing any doubt", that deed has already been accomplished by George W. Bush.

And if the "base" turns away from him, he, and all of his supporters, have nobody to blame but themselves.
Don't throw this at the Conservatives...it won't stick.

I've a question for those of you ardently & loyally standing by W:
If there was no war, how would you feel about him?

And please don't give me any cock 'n bull story about some grand plan to materialize if the GOP wins majorities in both House & Senate.

[rintense]

Be very careful. RBA is one of the board's biggest flirts. ;)

[rintense]

If Europe is using this as a crutch for the war on terror, and GWB buys it, then Europe and GWB can take a flying leap. You heard it here first! But I seriously doubt this is the case.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Here's a dose of common sense on what is REALLY going on. Make sure you go straight to Nick Danger's statement, post #242.

[rwfromkansas]

I support cleaning up the air to a degree....we have to acknowledge that companies can't be perfect or they would go out of business and the prices would go way up for us in the stores. But, not because of global warming. I simply support it because it is the right thing to do. I don't know about you, but I don't want the air in 100 years from now to be really dirty if we can at least keep it reasonable by having some REASONABLE reducations in emissions.

[rwfromkansas]

If that makes me a leftwinger, that is news to me.

[rwfromkansas]

also....note the words VOLUNTARY, INCENTIVE-BASED, AND EXISTING MANDATORY

[bloggerjohn]

"What's the use of an election, if we can't force these agencies to reflect the policy changes made by our elected leadership? "

You're joking, right? You don't alter a scientific report on the say so of a politician. Besides, we are looking at this all wrong. Clearly, this puts the lie to the Democratic canard that Bush Bows to Big Business. To quote the article:

"For the most part, the document does not reflect industry's wishes, which were conveyed in letters during a period of public comment on a draft last year"

But Bush simply allowed the report to be published, without altering it to, as the dems would certainly holler "reflect industry's wishes." Seems to me he is damned if he do and damned if he don't and at this point damned for being honest and releasing an unaltered report ;')