Replies

Drudge takes the bait and Rush follows.

That Rush would follow, based on what he states was an article on the front page of Monday's New York Times, is discouraging. I had been willing to give Rush the benefit of the doubt, that he was, as he so readily states (not in these words) a conservative ideologue, following his ideas, wherever they led.

But if Rush hasn't learned by now that the NY Times spins articles to serve its leftist agenda, then he's simply a conservative idiot. He should have gone to the original of the report sent to the United Nations and determined for himself what it said, which apparently was not much different than the Administration said last year on the same subject.

OVERHEATED TIMES TWO [Jonathan Adler]
A front-page New York Times story claims that the U.S. government has officially acknowledged the coming greenhouse apocalypse. Last week, the administration submitted the 2002 Climate Action Report to the United Nations. This report summarizes recent national and international syntheses of climate science, and describes some of the "likely" and "possible" impacts of increased emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate changes.
As is to be expected from any document produced by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of State, the report accentuates the negative. (For a more balanced presentation of the science see here and here .) At the same time, however, the report time and again reiterates the uncertainty of climate science. The Times nonetheless opens its story by claiming the report "detail[s] specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment." Not quite. The report outlines some specific potential scenarios, but it carefully states all of its predictions in probabilistic terms and reiterates the National Academy of Sciences' conclusion that specific predictions about climate change are, as yet, impossible. More importantly, the report notes (and the Times acknowledges) that global warming is likely to increase agricultural and forest productivity and that insofar as some climate change is inevitable, current policies should embrace adaptive measures, not crash energy diets. There's no need to wait to see how the report will be spun. The Times was ready this morning with an editorial calling for congressional action to regulate greenhouse gases. No doubt Senator Jeffords will do his best to oblige.
Posted 9:59 AM | [Link]

To me it seems like good politics for Dubya to leave himself a little room to maneuver on this issue. Michael Kelly had an piece last year saying that the environment was W's Achilles heel. I think he's smart to stake out a more centrist position before the 2004 race gets going. He hasn't really conceded anything, and if it turns out that the electorate and/or the science ends up more dictating stringent measures, Dubya can follow that path now without appearing to waffle during the 2004 campaign.

The bottom line is that the earth's climate constantly changes due to reasons UNRELATED to human activities. Remember the Ice Age? Actually there have been several Ice Ages and there will be more of them. "Global Warming" is nothing more than the natural evolution away from the last Ice Age. After that we will have "Global Cooling." No matter what people do.

from the summary that NONE of the Bush bashers actually read....

"Green house gasses are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activity, causing global mean surface temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise.While the changes over the last several decades are likely due mostly to human activities, we cannot rule out that a significant part is also a reflection of natural variability" While current analyses are unable to predict with confidence the timing, magnitude, or regional distribution of climate change,the best scientific information indicates that if greenhouse concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur. The U.S. National Resarch Council has cautioned, however, that "because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reaacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warnings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments(either upwards or downwards)." Moreover, there is perhaps even greater uncertainty the social, environmental, and economic consequences of changes in climate.

it's pretty clear NOBODY is reading this report carefully, however, plenty seem to be getting suckered hook line and sinker by Rush who is fishing for ratings, Drudge who has lately been too quick with the sensationalist headlines, and the NY Slimes who is pushing a liberal agenda to tarnish Bush among his base.

Sorry folks. Like it or not we lost the debate regarding whether global warming exists. The average person believes it to be so.

The problem with the existing terms of debate for both conservatives and liberals is we always missed the logical fallacy that the environuts were passing off. Namely that the Globe is warming THEREFORE we must sign Kyoto treaty.

Bush's approach on this put the debate against signing the treaty on much better footing that the old construct. It basically says OK so if global warming is caused by the minor amounts of man's actions what possible changes can man make (given that we have hundred years of carbon release) that would reverse the trend ? Its impossible to prove even with logical fallacies that anything will reverse the trend short of a complete ban on all releases.

But we must do something cry the environuts. Yes, Bush says we will study on how best to adapt to the coming changes. And oh yes, we conservatives will need to employ you scientists who have formerly worked for the environuts to come up with recommendations as to how best to adapt.

Bush has accepted that we lost the first argument but has retreated to a firmer place and at the same time has opened the opportunity to hire away the paid scientific shills.