• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Admin Questions if Global Warming is REAL!

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The dirtiest President in American history continues to uphold his image as the very worst environmental President! He now has a White House official, a lawyer, editing government climate reports on global warming. This guy's not a scientist, but he's editing scientific data to discredit global warming. Oh, did I tell you that this guy, Phillip Clooney was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry? A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

I guess the best way to put this is that Bush & Clooney are both DIRT bags!

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: June 8, 2005 - The New York Times

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.


The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman."

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.

But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.
The entire article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The White House press briefing today on the issue was quite entertaining... makes me wonder how McClelland can keep a straight face when he answers some questions......

here is a transcript of that part:


Q Scott, the Government Accountability Project, a private group, has obtained internal White House documents that show that a White House official that was formerly a lobbyist for the oil industry has doctored and edited administration scientific reports in ways that consistently emphasize supposed uncertainties about global warming -- uncertainties that the vast consensus of science doesn't think are that severe. And I wonder, does the President think that helps the credibility of the administration on scientific issues?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, first, I disagree with the characterization. I think that your characterization is contradicted by the scientific community. The National Academies of Science came out with a report in 2001 that was requested by the President; it took a look at science of climate change, and in that very report it talked about how there are considerable uncertainties. So some of the language that you referenced was based on the very report from the scientific community that the President had requested.

And in terms of this report that came out earlier today, let me just step back and talk to you a little bit about our interagency review process, because that's all this is. We have an interagency review process when it comes to issues like climate change and the environment. There are some 15 federal agencies that are involved in that interagency review process. It includes policy people; it includes scientists. And when we're getting ready to put out a report, it goes through that interagency review process so people can have their input into the report.

One of the very reports highlighted in the article today was the administration's 10-year plan for climate science. And that plan was widely praised by the scientific community, including the National Academies of Science.

Q The person in question, Phil Cooney, does he have any scientific background at all?
MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, there are policy people and scientists who are involved in this process, in the interagency review process. And he's one of the policy people involved in that process, and someone who's very familiar with the issues relating to climate change and the environment.

Q Because of his work lobbying for the oil industry?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll be glad to get you his background, Terry. But he's one of many people who are involved in the interagency review process, including those 15 federal agencies, and the White House offices like the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality. And the Office of Science and Technology Policy is very ably led by Dr. Marburger; he is a well-respected scientist. And they are very involved in that interagency review process. And that office not only is involved in the review process, but signs off on these reports before they go out. And they have signed off on these reports because they know that they are scientifically sound.

Q But administration scientists, Mr. Hansen at the Goddard Center in New York, a NASA scientist for 25 years, and others have come forward saying that the politicization of science in this administration -- these are not democratic activists; this is a scientist who works for the government -- has reached an extreme. And they point to instances like Mr. Cooney's editing and doctoring of these summaries, scientific summaries as proof of that.

MR. McCLELLAN: I encourage you to go look at the reports, because one of the reports that you highlighted was widely praised by the scientific community, including the National Academies of Science. These reports should always be based on our scientific knowledge and what is the best available science. And that's what we expect. And that's what those reports are based on.

Q So the administration scientists who are saying you have politicized scientific research are just wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I -- go back and look at what the scientific community said about that 10-year plan on climate science, and what the National Academies of Science said. And I point you back to the very first question you brought up when you talked about how there's some dispute that there are uncertainties regarding the science of climate of change.

Q That they are serious, that there --

MR. McCLELLAN: Right --

Q -- that there's uncertainty about the fact of global warming, and that there's a significant human component to it. The consensus is in.

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple things. The National Academy of Science report back in 2001 said there are considerable uncertainties about the science of climate change. Now, there are some things we do know. That report pointed out that surface temperatures are still rising, and that that is in large part because of human activity.

That's why this President is not waiting for us to have the full knowledge of science, as it continues to come in and we continue to learn more. The President is acting. We are moving forward on the President's initiative to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent come 2012. We are making steady progress. We are on track to meet that goal. We are moving forward on partnerships like the methane-to-markets initiative that the President outlined, and that the very individual you bring up was very involved in developing. This will help us produce cleaner burning electricity, and it will help capture a greenhouse gas emission and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

These are very important initiatives. We're also leading the way, when it comes to research, around the world. We are providing more resources and funding into the research and development of new technologies, cleaner technologies, that will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Q But in every example that you've cited --

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, do you all want to --

Q In every example that we have seen, and Mr. Cooney's emendations and deletions from these reports have been to the effect of making them less critical, less stringent, less apparently in need of immediate action. In other words, he's done everything in the examples we've seen to pull back from worst-case scenario. He is not a scientist.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's your opinion, and I think your opinion is wrong.

Q No, no, no, it's evident in the reading of it. He is not a scientist. It upsets the scientific community that non-scientists are doing this. That's why they say that he has a political agenda. Why wouldn't they think that? b

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, let me repeat what I just said: This is not based on any one individual. This is an interagency review process, where everybody who is involved in these issues should have input into these reports. And that's all this is. And if you go and look at the reports, namely the one I just referenced, the 10-year plan --

Q That's the only one you can reference. There are others that you can't reference because he changed them in a significantly different way.

MR. McCLELLAN: Where?

Q Well, right here, for example, in the October 2002 draft of Our Changing Planet. He says, "Many scientific observations indicate the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change." He made that, "may be." He cut out a section of another document on -- I can read that to you if you want, but you get the idea.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're selectively quoting things. I think you ought to go and look at some of the things he pointed out in his --

Q But the only thing you can point to is that one 2002 --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just pointed to what Terry brought up, when he talked about serious uncertainties, or something to that effect, and that is language that was used in the National Academy of Science report. So, I mean, if you want to talk about the facts, I'm glad to do that, and I think the facts point out that our reports are based on the best scientific knowledge, and they're based on the input --

Q But, Scott, you're not talking about the same thing here.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- they're based on the inputs of scientists.

Q But, Scott, you're clearly -- I mean, the United States is -- and I'm not making a judgment about this -- is out of step with other countries in the world, in terms of the existence of climate change and the causes of it. That debate is clear. I mean, the President, just yesterday, when asked about this, said, the United States is spending millions of dollars --

MR. McCLELLAN: Billions.

Q -- billions of dollars to research this issue, which is to say that he has not reached a conclusion yet. Fine. But --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, let me just correct you on that one point. It's to say that there are still -- there is still a lot of uncertainty when it comes to the science of climate change, and that's pointed out in the National Academy of Science report that the President requested when he came into office.
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Q Right, but there is other -- there's the body of opinion here that still works against that. The point is, if you go back to June of 2003, an EPA report on climate change had a whole section on climate change simply deleted out of it, and critics charged the very same thing, which is that -- it's not that the view -- it's not a judgment about the view, it's that the process here, the science here is being overwhelmed by the politics. Is that not a fair criticism?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it has been contradicted by the scientific community, itself, when they look at these reports and they widely praise the report that I referenced. It was one of our major reports on climate change. It was our 10-year plan on climate science research. And that is an important undertaking that this administration led. And there's an interagency --

Q There's ample evidence that you guys are -- that policy people are putting their own spin on the science.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I guess, David, you want to let me finish and respond. I'm trying to get you the information that you want, not that some people may want us to say, because that's not the case. I'm going to tell what the facts are. And the facts are that there is an interagency review process with a number of agencies involved that are impacted by -- or that are involved in these decisions, in these reports. And many people have input into that interagency review process.

Our reports are based on the best scientific knowledge. There are number of scientists involved in this. The Office of Science and Technology Policy is involved very much in this process, and the head of that office is a well-respected scientist. And he has signed off on these reports because they're based on sound science. They're based on the best available science.

Q Scott, there's another player in all of this. It's a fellow who has been held out as a whistle-blower essentially, who is accusing the administration more or less of basically not giving an honest assessment on the environment. What's your take on him? Is he a whistle-blower? Does he have an axe to grind? To what extent can you weigh in on --

MR. McCLELLAN: Who is this individual?

Q The fellow's name is Rick Piltz.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what's his background?

Q He's been held out by the Government Accountability Project as a government employee --

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, you might ask him --

Q -- who, in fact, works for --

MR. McCLELLAN: You might ask him those questions.

Q He's a senior associate for government climate change. So he's in the office affected, and he's the person making the assertions.

MR. McCLELLAN: And when did he come into that office and what was his background before that?

Q Well, he obviously left the office because he did not like the way these documents were being filtered. So are you not familiar with him? He was also mentioned in the article.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you might want to look into his background. I don't know all the answers to that and why he has such motives. But that's something for you to do, and to look at his background, why he came to these -- or why he came to this. That's not for me to do. I'm here to tell you what the facts are. And the facts are that our policies and our reports are based on the best available science, and that this administration is acting and leading the way when it comes to addressing the serious long-term challenge we face from climate change.

Q So you disagree with his assertions? You disagree with the notion that the administration is, in fact, making the assessment of --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what his assertions are. I saw them referenced in a report, but I haven't heard exactly what his assertions are. That's for you to ask him, and it's for you to look at what his background is.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050608-2.html#d
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'm just going to state for the record, not really relating specifically to this issue, but Scott McClellan has THE hardest job in America, and no matter what he's getting paid, it's nowhere near enough.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
RightatNYU said:
I'm just going to state for the record, not really relating specifically to this issue, but Scott McClellan has THE hardest job in America, and no matter what he's getting paid, it's nowhere near enough.
Exactly, that job, no matter who the president is at the time is always the hardest. But I feel sorry for McClellan as he hasn't got the science of it down yet as Rummy most obviously has, of being not informative and dismissive of contradicting statements (honestly I love watching a Rummy Q&A because of how hilarious it is, but McClellan jsut doesn't do it for me...).
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Does this come as any real surprise? We all know the Bush Administration has stretched the truth and flat out lied several times before.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He now has a White House official, a lawyer, editing government climate reports on global warming. This guy's not a scientist, but he's editing scientific data to discredit global warming.
Champ, please tell me you don't believe this scam about Global Warming. :doh This was initiated and invented by the UN. It is all computer generated and not based on scientific evidence at all. The law suits are lined up waiting to sue every American company existing in another country. The US is the only country in the world capable of cleaning up any pollution they create. Did you know China will be exempt from regulation? They are the rising super power and have very little environmental regulation.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
Champ, please tell me you don't believe this scam about Global Warming. :doh This was initiated and invented by the UN. It is all computer generated and not based on scientific evidence at all.
You know Squawk, you need to get out more. It's one thing to believe in your President to a fault, but it's quite another to think the ENTIRE world is making up Global Warming.

You're way too smart to write stuff like this. How can you be so anti-abortion claiming that life is so precious yet you have no desire to protect the Earth? It's totally disconnected.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You're way too smart to write stuff like this. How can you be so anti-abortion claiming that life is so precious yet you have no desire to protect the Earth?
I have some inside information on this one Champ. Trust me, it's a scam from top to bottom. I want clean air and water just like everyone else does. We need to pay for cleaning up our country, not every country in the world. The minute we sign on to an agreement we become libel.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
Is it any wonder why the United States Senate did not pass the Kyoto Treaty? I believe the vote was 98-0. Someone can correct me on that. But I know it failed overwhelmingly.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
I have some inside information on this one Champ. Trust me, it's a scam from top to bottom. I want clean air and water just like everyone else does. We need to pay for cleaning up our country, not every country in the world. The minute we sign on to an agreement we become libel.
That is not what this thread is about. This is about Bush and his cronies purposely changing scientific documents that relate to US ecological regulations to benefit the polluters.

This is about Bush ignoring the truth so that his scummies can make more money. This is about money over ecology.

You write that you're Pro-Clean Water & Air yet you are OK with allowing Bush to be the biggest and worst polluting President in the modern era.

Bush is an eco nightmare. If you cannot see this then, IMHO, you cannot really care about our environment.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
Or to have the United States sign off on it, then? I know the Senate voted 90 something to Zero regarding the Kyoto Treaty.

Edumacate me.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is about Bush ignoring the truth so that his scummies can make more money. This is about money over ecology.

You write that you're Pro-Clean Water & Air yet you are OK with allowing Bush to be the biggest and worst polluting President in the modern era.

Bush is an eco nightmare. If you cannot see this then, IMHO, you cannot really care about our environment.
Put your evidence where your mouth is Champ. From Nixon on up, Republicans have led the way on environmental issues. This is another issue the Democrats whine about and use for political purposes.
 

Bluefire

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Squawker said:
Put your evidence where your mouth is Champ. From Nixon on up, Republicans have led the way on environmental issues. This is another issue the Democrats whine about and use for political purposes.
Put your evidence where your mouth is and give the forum something more then "I have insider information". Prove it.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
100% WRONG! The Senate NEVER voted on it, ever....
I sure hope you like the taste of crow, because you've been eating a LOT of it lately.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html
Thank you for your letter of March 6, 2001, asking for the Administration's views on global climate change, in particular the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. My Administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously.

As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.
Even if Bush had WANTED to sign Kyoto, he wouldn't have been able to because the Senate UNANIMOUSLY voted against it.

I honestly don't think you could have been more wrong.
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
26X said:
You write that you're Pro-Clean Water & Air yet you are OK with allowing Bush to be the biggest and worst polluting President in the modern era.
First, I believe Taft was the biggest president of the modern era. He required a specially built bathtub to contain his girth. And exactly what evidence do you have the Bush is the worst polluting president? You might argue (wrongly) that his policies have allowed for greater pollution, but unless you have video of him strolling through the rose garden tossing litter willy-nilly to and fro I think you should retract your slanderous statement.

Is anyone actually surprised that a politician edited information to present the best case for their side? Does anyone actually think this practice started (or has even intensified greatly) with the current administration?

And yes 26X, the question of whether global warming is a fact must be made a part of this thread because only by assuming that all of the information contained in the edited report was absolutely true can you ascribe any wrongdoing to it's modification. The drive for regulations such as Kyoto come from nations which I can assure you do not have the best interests or prosperity of the United States as their primary concern. All of them would benefit greatly from a U.S. industrially handcuffed as the Kyoto Protocols call for. Did it ever occur to you that the U.S. is not the only nation that puts it's own interests first in the world? Did it ever occur to you that these nations would be exuberant to embrace a theory which accused the U.S. of hastening Armageddon, and thus it must be brought down from it's current lofty position? Kyoto would be economic suicide for the United States, and the jackals are already crouching across the seas ready to take for themselves our remains.

These infallible climatologists who have so certainly predicted the course of our planet's weather over the next century; aren't these those same folks that scared the crap out of me when I was a kid in the late '70s by assuring us that we were about to enter another ice age? Aren't these those people who are predicting patterns which take place over millions of years based on climatological data that has been kept accurately for less than one hundred years? Aren't these the same people who so recently made such dire predictions about El Nino and La Nina? Aren't these those same people who predicted in the early days of greenhouse theory that by the year 2000 the Earth's ambient temperature would have raised seven degrees and flooded out Florida and Louisiana? And I bet a lot of you environmentalists look down your noses at the religious for taking things on faith... Well, we each have our favourite prophets I suppose.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
RightatNYU said:
I'm just going to state for the record, not really relating specifically to this issue, but Scott McClellan has THE hardest job in America, and no matter what he's getting paid, it's nowhere near enough.

Actually, Alaskan Crab Fishermen have the hardest job.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have some ocean front property I would like to sell you global warming believers.

Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about 47,000,000,000+ while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.000487991C (to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C.
Source
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The key word is Scientistclaim. They will claim the moon is made of cheese for enough money, IMO. The original idea for the global warming "claim" came straight from the UN using computer generated models. It is a way to bring the US to it's knees. The real cause of global warming is the sun and the action of sunspots. Man has very little impact in the global scheme of things. If we sign on to the Kyoto Treaty, it will be the biggest mistake in our history.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
walrus said:
First, I believe Taft was the biggest president of the modern era. He required a specially built bathtub to contain his girth.
Yea, Taft was a big sonofabitch.



And I bet a lot of you environmentalists look down your noses at the religious for taking things on faith... Well, we each have our favourite prophets I suppose.
Very well stated.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
RightatNYU said:
I sure hope you like the taste of crow, because you've been eating a LOT of it lately.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html


Even if Bush had WANTED to sign Kyoto, he wouldn't have been able to because the Senate UNANIMOUSLY voted against it.

I honestly don't think you could have been more wrong.
Sorry to disappoint you, but what you're citing was a NON-BINDING vote! How'd you miss that pal? Don't believe me:
Q. Did the U.S. Senate vote against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?

A. No. The protocol has never been submitted to the senate for ratification. The Bush administration has referred to a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution, which registered views on some aspects of protocol negotiations. The vote on the Byrd-Hagel resolution took place prior to the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement, and before any of the flexibility mechanisms were established. The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said: "It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees … that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real…. Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently… [but] I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer."
Source: http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp

What was that you were saying that I couldn't be more wrong? It appears the shoe is on the other foot, champ!
 
Top Bottom