Bush Admin Questions if Global Warming is REAL!

[26 X World Champs]

^^Champ Champ Champ, Try and :spin: that one. Wrong? Riiiight.

Flip, you flopped, again...read my post responding to what you so maturely gloated about....

You know something? You're a FLIP FLOPPER! :lamo

 

[flip2]

Ouch, I'm hurt. No. Seriously. Somebody. Please, I've been burned. Oh no. :roll:

 

[26 X World Champs]

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.

Without question, this is the DUMBEST, STUPIDEST claim you've ever, ever made. This claim is even worse than any claim Fantasea has ever made, and I never thought I'd see the day that anyone could be more wrong than Fantasea!

You're asking me to disprove your bullshit claim. I believe it is up to YOU to prove your bullshit claim.

You might very well be the most brainwashed of all the wackos on this board. If you sincerely believe that Republicans "have led the way on environmental issues" than you really need to stop sniffing whatever it is you're sniffing or stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking because you've lost way, way too many brain cells!

 

[flip2]

Wow, taking a lot of things quite personally. I think that may have been borderline, definitely uncalled for.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Ouch, I'm hurt. No. Seriously. Somebody. Please, I've been burned. Oh no. :roll:

Hurt? Who knows or cares? Wrong? 100% for sure. You were so fast to condemn me, but you do not even have the intelligence to admit that you were mistaken.

Believe me if I am proven wrong I would not hesitate to admit I am mistaken. Big deal, all of us are wrong, often. Too bad you lack the humility to admit to yourself or anyone else that you made a mistake.

Personally, I admire when someone admits they made a mistake. I also find it cleansing to say I screwed up, it's a good feeling to simply admit I was wrong rather than allowing foolish pride to interfere with my ability to be an intelligent person.

 

[flip2]

I admit, I was wrong when I voted for McCain in the 2000 Florida Primary. Clearly, Bush won the primaries.

 

[Squawker]

Believe me if I am proven wrong I would not hesitate to admit I am mistaken. Big deal, all of us are wrong, often.

:notlook: I didn't see that Champ. :rofl

If you sincerely believe that Republicans "have led the way on environmental issues" than you really need to stop sniffing whatever it is you're sniffing or stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking because you've lost way, way too many brain cells!

Rockefeller was the first one to set aside land for preservation, and Nixon established the EPA, Champ. That was way before the Democrats even thought of saving the environment. The Democrats took it up as an issue because they thought they could control the evils of Capitalism. They are using it as a tool against the rich corporations with a bit of extortion thrown in, but they really don't give a damn about pollution itself. It's a control issue, Champ.
(Moderator) Watch the name calling Champ, you are bigger than that buddy.

 

[26 X World Champs]

:notlook: I didn't see that Champ. :rofl
Rockefeller was the first one to set aside land for preservation, and Nixon established the EPA, Champ. That was way before the Democrats even thought of saving the environment. The Democrats took it up as an issue because they thought they could control the evils of Capitalism. They are using it as a tool against the rich corporations with a bit of extortion thrown in, but they really don't give a damn about pollution itself. It's a control issue, Champ.
(Moderator) Watch the name calling Champ, you are bigger than that buddy.

I apologize for the name calling, you got under my skin with your claim that Republican's are the champions of the environment. I just feel that is so incredibly wrong.

For example, follow this link to the NRDC and read Bush's 4+ year report card on the environment, it's frightening...NO! It's criminal!

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/

 

[Bluefire]

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.

Scientists also claim that the Earth is round, that the Earth is tilted on its Axis, that the Earth rotates around the sun. All of these are claims, backed up by evidence, just as the claim that Global Warming exists.

The big problem with Global Warming is that while we know it exists, we just don't know what its effect on the Earth will be in the future. Its really expensive and costly to measure just how much effect this factor has on the Earth, and whether we should be worried about it or not.

It seems pretty insignificant from what we know thus far, but to say that it doesn't exist is to ignore evidence that it does.

 

[Squawker]

The big problem with Global Warming is that while we know it exists, we just don't know what its effect on the Earth will be in the future. Its really expensive and costly to measure just how much effect this factor has on the Earth, and whether we should be worried about it or not.

It is a bit arrogant to think man can change the course of nature. Man had nothing to do with causing the ice age or the subsequent warming. To say that the warming is continuing on it's natural course is one thing, but to say man has changed that course, or speeded up the process is pure conjecture. It just isn't something man can do IMO. We would like to think we have the power of God, but we don't.

For example, follow this link to the NRDC and read Bush's 4+ year report card on the environment, it's frightening...NO! It's criminal!

You over react Champ. President Bush got set up for that if you will recall. Before Clinton left office he set some unrealistic environmental standards. The level of mercury allowed was set so low that it couldn't be met without extraordinary costs for example. Clinton had eight years to do that, but he waited until he was leaving office. President Bush raised the level to a more realistic figure that could be met without undue hardship. The Democrats then started screaming that Republicans were for dirty air and trying to poison our children. :roll: You're a bright guy so, you know that game Champ.

 

[26 X World Champs]

It is a bit arrogant to think man can change the course of nature. Man had nothing to do with causing the ice age or the subsequent warming. To say that the warming is continuing on it's natural course is one thing, but to say man has changed that course, or speeded up the process is pure conjecture. It just isn't something man can do IMO. We would like to think we have the power of God, but we don't.

I just don't know how you can write this stuff. Are you purposely trying to discount the entire scientific community? Why should any of us believe that you know more about this than science does? I started this thread because an ahole in the Bush administration took it upon himself to change scientific data to serve the purpose of big business. Now, you are doing exactly the same thing. Cooney is wrong, and Squawk is just as wrong.

You over react Champ. President Bush got set up for that if you will recall. Before Clinton left office he set some unrealistic environmental standards. The level of mercury allowed was set so low that it couldn't be met without extraordinary costs for example. Clinton had eight years to do that, but he waited until he was leaving office. President Bush raised the level to a more realistic figure that could be met without undue hardship. The Democrats then started screaming that Republicans were for dirty air and trying to poison our children. :roll: You're a bright guy so, you know that game Champ.

Is there anything at all that you will not blame on Clinton! Not only is it foolish, it is flat out wrong, period.'

Ever hear of the Clean Air Act? Have you? It is the basis for many of our environmental standards. Do you have any idea when it was enacted? Hmm? 1990! Please spin this so that Clinton is "blamed" for one great piece of legislation? Who was President then anyway, can you remember?

Baby Bush has some BS thing called the "Clean Skies" initiative. Do you know what this is doing to the Clean Air Act signed by Old Man Bush?

Unlike you Squawk, I'm providing FACTS and links to these facts. So spin these:

Facts About the Bush Administration’s Plan to Weaken the Clean Air Act

In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush touted a plan that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. But why is the Administration bragging about a plan that will actually result in more pollution than if we simply enforced the existing Clean Air Act? Who stands to benefit from placing communities at risk, particularly children and the elderly who are significantly threatened by air pollution?

Americans don’t have to settle for only a 70 percent cut in air pollution when existing laws and existing technology mean that we can do better.

*The so-called "Clear Skies" initiative expands the pollution trading system that results in some communities getting cleaner, but many communities losing out on cleaner air. The two-stage plan isn't even fully in place for another 15 years. Even if the plan caused some net reductions in pollution, many communities would still be threatened by more pollution. Why should some local communities be left behind? And why should we wait so long?

*Mercury is a dangerous toxin that threatens people and wildlife as a pollutant from coal-fired power plants. The EPA estimates that enforcement of existing toxic air pollution protections in the Clean Air Act will limit mercury pollution to 5 tons per year by 2008. The Bush Administration’s plan weakens the limit to 26 tons per year by 2010 – allowing 520 percent more mercury pollution. A new EPA report discusses the ways pregnant women pass mercury on to their babies, causing mental retardation, but why did the Administration sit on the report for more than nine months and only release it after journalists exposed their findings?

*Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a major contributor to smog that is linked to asthma and lung disease. Current Clean Air Act programs could result in NOx pollution levels of about 1.25 million tons by 2010. But the Bush plan calls for loosening the cap on NOx pollution to 2.1 million tons by 2008 – effectively allowing 68 percent more NOx pollution.

*Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) is the major contributor acid rain and soot. Clean Air Act programs could reduce SO2 pollution levels to 2 million tons by 2012. The Bush Administration plan weakens protections to allow 4.5 million tons of SO2 by 2010 – allowing a staggering 225 percent more SO2 pollution.

*Despite repeated claims during the 2000 election that he would put forth legislation that would address CO2 emissions, the Administration's plan fails to set any limit on carbon dioxide emissions. Instead the Administration has called for a voluntary approach that will likely increase heat-trapping CO2 that causes global warming.

*By the 15th year of the Bush plan: 450,000 more tons of NOx, one million more tons of SO2, and 9.5 more tons of mercury would be allowed than under strong enforcement of existing Clean Air Act programs.

*The Bush plan creates a loophole exempting power plants from being held accountable to the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) standards and from being required to install cleanup technology (best available retrofit technology or BART). NSR standards require new power plants and upgraded plants to comply with modern federal emissions limits. BART protects communities from persistent haze and other air quality problems by reducing the pollution emitted from antiquated power plants.

*"Clear Skies" delays the enforcement of public health standards for smog and soot until the end of 2015.

*The Bush plan restricts the power of states to call for an end to pollution from upwind sources in other states. The plan prohibits any petitions of this sort from even being implemented before 2012.

Source: http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp

There is so much more that Baby Bush is doing to us. His record on the environment is horrendous, the worst ever. For you to try to blame Clinton for any of this is delusional, I'm sorry, but that is the truth. If that sounds like a personal attack then I apologize, but the facts are the facts, and Clinton was an excellent environmental president and Baby Bush is 180 degrees the opposite.

How can you not care enough about our environment?

 

[GarzaUK]

All I know that last month we had the hottest day for May in 50 years in the UK.

Last summer we had the hottest day ever! I wouldn't be complaining, but our summers are getting wetter - we haven't had a decent summer since 95.

Our winters are getting dryer and warmer.

Our weather is pretty screwed up here already.

 

[RightinNYC]

Sorry to disappoint you, but what you're citing was a NON-BINDING vote! How'd you miss that pal? Don't believe me:

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!

Did you even read what that thing said? It made the fallacious claim that because some terms of Kyoto weren't nailed down, and the vote wasn't SPECIFICALLY on the final version of Kyoto, that it wasn't a senate rejection of Kyoto.

For a more realistic look, we can take a few more articles from environmental group websites:

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=703

Second Senate vote on Kyoto-lite bill is delayed again

S. 139, the so-called Climate Stewardship Act, would cap greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010 and at 1990 levels by 2016. The amendment would likely include only the first phase of reductions. A similar amendment was defeated on October 30, 2003 by a 55 to 43 vote.

However, currently it appears that the measure would be lucky to get 43 votes in a second vote.

This is a WEAKENED version of Kyoto that was voted down once, and is on its way toward getting voted down again. What makes you think an even more intrusive one would pass? Oh, your detachment from reality. I see.

You really do have no idea what you're talking about, but you won't listen to me, so I'll direct you to another person who's almost as foolish and rabid as yourself. Chuck Hagel, the sponsor of that very above bill.

http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Hagel_072402.htm

Of course, much of the talk today is also likely to focus on a treaty that was signed by President Clinton but never submitted to the Senate, the Kyoto Protocol.

I would like to remind my colleagues of a bit of Senate history on this issue.

Tomorrow will mark the five-year point since the Senate voted unanimously to provide President Clinton and Vice President Gore with clear advice regarding the Kyoto Protocol. It is unfortunate that the Clinton Administration ignored the Senate's 95-0 vote on S.Res. 98, or the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, but the conditions outlined in that resolution remain the guideposts for U.S. international climate change policy.

As we know, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution was very clear. It called on the President not to sign the Kyoto Protocol, or any other international climate change agreement, unless two minimum conditions were met.

First, S.Res.98 directed the President not to sign any treaty "...unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period." The message was simple. Yet as we know, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. These are the very nations, such and China and India, that will soon lead the world in manmade greenhouse emissions. Any treaty that exempts them from participation is folly.

Second, the Resolution stated the President should not sign any treaty that "...would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." The Kyoto Protocol would have legally bound the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. As President Bush stated in February, this would have cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and resulted in the loss of 4.9 million jobs.

The Clinton Administration never submitted it to the Senate for debate and consideration. I suspect it is because they knew what is still true today - if put to a vote in the Senate, the Kyoto Protocol would face resounding defeat.

Other nations are also reconsidering their early ardent advocacy for the Kyoto Protocol. Japan has ratified the treaty, but has no enforceable plan to meet its obligations. The same is true for the European Union. Australia has joined the United States in saying it will not ratify the protocol. Canada and Russia have not made final commitments to ratification.

The Kyoto Protocol is collapsing under the weight of the reality of its economic consequences.

What was that you were saying about how it tasted to be wrong?

 

[RightinNYC]

Personally, I admire when someone admits they made a mistake. I also find it cleansing to say I screwed up, it's a good feeling to simply admit I was wrong rather than allowing foolish pride to interfere with my ability to be an intelligent person.

I'd love to see it.

 

[26 X World Champs]

This is a WEAKENED version of Kyoto that was voted down once, and is on its way toward getting voted down again. What makes you think an even more intrusive one would pass? Oh, your detachment from reality. I see.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I NEVER said it would pass, show me anything close to that? I said that it was NEVER VOTED on, and that is all I said.

All of your other bullshit attacks of me are just bluster, period. Flip Flopper wrote that the Kyoto Treaty was voted down by the Senate by 98-0. I simply said it was never voted on.

You simply got it wrong, again.

What was that you were saying about how it tasted to be wrong?

I said that if I make mistakes I have no problem admitting it. What about you?

 

[Fantasea]

100% WRONG! The Senate NEVER voted on it, ever....

Here's the scoop:

Full Story: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/278.html

Excerpt:

Although the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.), which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

 

[Fantasea]

100% WRONG! The Senate NEVER voted on it, ever....

Here's the scoop:

Full Story: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/278.html

Excerpt:

Although the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.), which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

I think the whole global warming business is a scam on the order of the Y2K nonsense that cost untold millions.

 

[stsburns]

Its nothing more than a power struggle. HMM. Weren't you the same people that said President Bush was sticking his nose in other peoples "Business" by invading Iraq. But by Forcing Sadam to clean his air and water, LOL, you've got to be the biggest 's i know! :rofl

 

[stsburns]

The idiocy of the right never ceases to amaze me. Comparing a BLOW JOB to a President who committed multiple felonies due to his paranoia is pathetic.
\

Proof 26 X hasn't a clue.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Here's the scoop:

Full Story: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/278.html

Excerpt:

Although the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.), which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

I think the whole global warming business is a scam on the order of the Y2K nonsense that cost untold millions.

Now we know the truth! How do we know? Whatever Fantasea says, to find the truth, do the opposite!

I again repeat that my only point on this is that the Senate NEVER voted on it, period. Non-Binding means it doesn't count, get it?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Proof 26 X hasn't a clue.

Now that you've discovered the silver bullet, please share it with everyone. You cited my post that said that anyone who equates Clinton receiving a blow job to Nixon & Company's Watergate crimes is in serious need of remedial schooling.

So please Mr. Burns, please tell us how you feel that lying about sex is the same as having 40 members of the Nixon Administration go to jail for their Watergate crimes and Nixon himself being the most disgraced President in our history.

I can hardly wait to read your "logic" it should make for good stuff...

 

[RightinNYC]

Now we know the truth! How do we know? Whatever Fantasea says, to find the truth, do the opposite!

I again repeat that my only point on this is that the Senate NEVER voted on it, period. Non-Binding means it doesn't count, get it?

I really can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if you actually believe what you're saying. Don't you understand? It's simple politics.

The Kyoto Protocol itself was never specifically voted on, because the Byrd-Hagel resolution made it unnecessary. The Senate felt so strongly that Kyoto should not pass that rather than wait for Billy to send it to them for ratification and let the Kyoto debate create more news stir, they created their OWN resolution that they could vote against, ending the debate there.

If you notice, it was mostly supported by democratic senators for one reason:

So they could vote against it and end the Kyoto debate without actually going on the record as voting AGAINST environmental issues, so as to protect the image of the Dems as the "green" party. They created the resolution to get it over with before Bill passed it on because the longer this issue stayed in the news, the more a "no" vote would hurt politically.

So yes, if you want to go by your exacting definition, then the Senate never voted on Kyoto. But if you want to look at it in a pragmatic sense, with half a brain, you'd understand that the Byrd-Hagel resolution was little more than a surrogate.

Just out of curiosity, what other nicknames have you doled out so far?

I'm Sgt. Shaw, flip is flip flopper...anybody else?

 

[Bluefire]

It is a bit arrogant to think man can change the course of nature. Man had nothing to do with causing the ice age or the subsequent warming. To say that the warming is continuing on it's natural course is one thing, but to say man has changed that course, or speeded up the process is pure conjecture. It just isn't something man can do IMO. We would like to think we have the power of God, but we don't.

Now you are throwing out scientific proof because you think its its "arrogant" and that we "think we have the power of God"?

First, let me take a quote from the Christian God proving that he gave us the authority to be the caretakers of the world.

Applying this concept to our relationship to the environment, we tend to forget that even though we are part of nature, the Bible tells us that are different from the rest of it. This difference is more than just the fact that mankind was separated from the creation through the Fall or that we are able to affect our environment far more than any of the other creatures. We have been different from the beginning. The historical record of the Scriptures tells us that following the creation of all the other creatures, God said "let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the wild animals and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Gen. 1:26) We must understand that to view ourselves as merely on small piece of nature is denying the obvious fact that God has placed us in a position of responsibility to care for his creation. We are not just a participant with no greater value than the rest. We are the keepers of the creation.

This was taken from http://www.surfinthespirit.com/environment/mans-place-in-nature.shtml

Next, let me ask again how you can just discount the Scientific proof that I gave you in one of my posts. You haven't provided any evidence or proof at all to the contrary. Please don't provide philosophy without proof, as it means nothing. The link was:

http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm

In fact, the Kyoto treaty is just *ONE* way to fight Greenhouse gasses, and a bad one for the US since we produce 25% of the World's Greenhouse gasses. This means that with all of the technology that we would have to change, it would cost the US huge amounts of money.

The United States prefers to research new techologies to reduce global warming which is quite different from the European way of CO2 reduction and sharing.

In fact, at the G8 summit, there is likely to be a new treaty that is going to occur. The US, China, and other similar countries will increase their technological research commitment in lieu of the Kyoto treaty measures, while Europe will stick to the Kyoto plan.

This was revealed after Bush met with Tony Blair last week. For a link:

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=631882005

 

[stsburns]

Now that you've discovered the silver bullet, please share it with everyone. You cited my post that said that anyone who equates Clinton receiving a blow job to Nixon & Company's Watergate crimes is in serious need of remedial schooling.

So please Mr. Burns, please tell us how you feel that lying about sex is the same as having 40 members of the Nixon Administration go to jail for their Watergate crimes and Nixon himself being the most disgraced President in our history.

I can hardly wait to read your "logic" it should make for good stuff...

FYI: it was bait, to get a response. Besides you missed the point entirely.

Second:
You think it is "ok" to BOSS sadam around to "clean air and water" LOL, but God forbid someone INVADE HIM! :laughat: :think:

What other "logic" do you need?

 

[Fantasea]

Now we know the truth! How do we know? Whatever Fantasea says, to find the truth, do the opposite!

I again repeat that my only point on this is that the Senate NEVER voted on it, period. Non-Binding means it doesn't count, get it?

You're so bitter that you can't even recognize I was supporting your position with some fact.

Why do I bother?