Bush’s climate plan would undercut real progress

[DeclinetoState]

Too little, too late
Bush’s climate plan would undercut real progress
Published: April 18, 2008 12:00AM
<hr>
If President Bush wants to leave a positive legacy on global warming, his proposal to halt the growth of U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2025 is not the way to go about it.

If Bush wants to undercut efforts in Congress and at the international level to reduce emissions — and if he wants to make certain the challenge of climate change is dumped in his successor’s lap — then he has picked exactly the right strategy.

Citing development and deployment of new technologies as the cornerstone of his plan, Bush said Wednesday that emissions in the United States should reach a peak within 15 years and then start declining after that. He urged other major polluting nations to develop national goals to address climate change.Eugene Register-Guard editorial (http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=95113&sid=5&fid=1)

[DoctorDoom]

These paragraphs say all that needs to be said about it:

While there is no global consensus on specific emissions targets, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted catastrophic changes in weather patterns, sea levels and food production unless greenhouse emissions are swiftly stabilized and then reduced by as much as 80 percent by midcentury. By 2025, emissions must be well into a sharp decline — not merely stabilized, as the president proposes.

[snip]

The warming of the planet is the overriding environmental issue of our times. The American people deserve a serious strategy to reduce emissions. Far better than their president, they understand that the cost of acting now will be trivial compared to the cost of further delay.The author is just another brain-dead Gorebot parroting his massa's lies and bullshit.

[dPrasse]

I recently asked a Global Warming nut just how he knew that the planet wasn't actually recovering from centuries of Global Cooling and that we are just returning to the "Correct Temperature" ? ( I was "giving" him the benefit of the doubt that Global Warming IS happening ... )

He had no clue ... no answer as to why Greenland used to be GREEN ...
No clue why cold blooded tropical lizards lived in North Dakota ...

He just "knows" man is bad and it is our fault ...

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ann Coulter on Global Warming: "The temperature of the planet has increased about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century. So imagine a summer afternoon when it's 63 degrees and the next thing you know it's ... 64 degrees. Ahhhh!!!! Run for your lives, everybody! Women and children first!"

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. (My emphasis)

Michael Crichton on consensus (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html)

[dPrasse]

Ann Coulter on Global Warming: "The temperature of the planet has increased about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century. So imagine a summer afternoon when it's 63 degrees and the next thing you know it's ... 64 degrees. Ahhhh!!!! Run for your lives, everybody! Women and children first!"

Of course !

I love the "evidence" given from some using increased skin cancer rates over the past century ...

they completely ignore ...

1. due to progress , Drs diagnose many more physical ailments "properly" than the did 100 yrs ago ...

The differences in "skin exposure" over the last 100 yrs ...

From this

http://www.smith-zimmermann.dsu.edu/chautauqua/1901swimsuits.jpg

to this

http://www.cmp.ucr.edu/exhibitions/ocean-view/essays/lothrop/swimsuit3.jpg

to this

http://www.viewpoints.com/images/review/2007/165/4/1181814002-49526_full.jpg

to this ...

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5851/japan20swimsuits4pc1.jpg

Wonder why skin cancer rates might be up ...

[Beowulf]

So what you're saying, Prasse, is that these must be banned:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5851/japan20swimsuits4pc1.jpg

Oh damn! I guess I had better not give the Libbies anymore ideas!

[dPrasse]

Come on , Beo ... you know I don't like banning things ...

[DeclinetoState]

So what you're saying, Prasse, is that these must be banned:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5851/japan20swimsuits4pc1.jpg

Oh damn! I guess I had better not give the Libbies anymore ideas!

"Ladies, those swimsuits are contraband. I must confiscate them. Right now. Please remove them or I will have to remove them for you.

"Thank you. Have a nice day."