<font color="#0099cc">President Bush has sent a report to the UN basicly saying that all the things claimed in the Kyoto accords is true and that it is due to human action. The reports doesnt cite any new science, nor any new studies. This new report to the UN appears to be a shift by the Bush administration to regain political ground lost in his defeats over ANWAR drilling.

Well now, ain't this a kick in the head...No new science no new studies, but they are changing their tune. I don't get it. Some times I hate ALL politicians.

Well in theory this should make the environmentatlists happy, altho no change in the administrations stace on the Kyoto accords was announced.</font>

Article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/03/sc...tner=PRESSDEMO

[ 06-03-2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

do not even try to understand politicians the slightest bit MagiK, you'll only end up having a sour head.

Johnny, don't you mean sore? ;)
I personally am no longer surprised by politicians' actions. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised.

<font color="#0099cc">Well it certainly does give me the chance to show that Im not a blind follower of the President [img]smile.gif[/img] I do disagree with this new "strategy" Either you believe something or you don't and you don't flip flop on it with out some new evidence.</font>

no, i meant sour, like in "sour grapes", only this time "sour head", get it ?

i wish he would stop playing by his fathers play book.if i were bush i would use the anwar defeat to shame the dems.just go to the people and point out how the dems were forcing us to depend on the people who are attacking us for our oil.and then show them how we could produce what we need,but that we are being held up by one party.

About time some of the "slower brain" people realized that global warming is going on...or the some that completely refuse to believe it.

<font color="#0099cc">It would help if they could show any hard evidence that man is having a significant impact on global warming. Volcanos are doing more damage than man could ever hope to do, not to mention the studies that show global climate and temps do not correlate to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in deep ice cores taken from the Arctic and Antarctic. So going around and calling people Slow Brains just because they look at scientific studies that don't agree with your theory is rather rude. It invites us to ask questions like...according to ecologists in the 1970's the rain forest in south america should have disappeared nearly 5 years ago....last I looked it is still there. So what happened to all that eco-science? You too can see satellite photos of it on the internet in real time if you would like.

You might also notice that Bush is seemingly only doing this to gain votes for republicans in the next election, not because he has surprising new evidence that the policy is right or wrong.
</font>

This issue has been debated to death really, there are studies for and studies against, neither side has conclusive evidence of anything.

[ 06-03-2002, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#0099cc">It would help if they could show any hard evidence that man is having a significant impact on global warming. Volcanos are doing more damage than man could ever hope to do, not to mention the studies that show global climate and temps do not correlate to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in deep ice cores taken from the Arctic and Antarctic. So going around and calling people Slow Brains just because they look at scientific studies that don't agree with your theory is rather rude. It invites us to ask questions like...according to ecologists in the 1970's the rain forest in south america should have disappeared nearly 5 years ago....last I looked it is still there. So what happened to all that eco-science? You too can see satellite photos of it on the internet in real time if you would like.

You might also notice that Bush is seemingly only doing this to gain votes for republicans in the next election, not because he has surprising new evidence that the policy is right or wrong.
</font>

This issue has been debated to death really, there are studies for and studies against, neither side has conclusive evidence of anything.</font>[/QUOTE]The reason why the rainforest hasn’t disappeared is cos some of it’s being preserved, It will disappear soon enough if we carry on like this, don’t you worry. BTW it is possible to be wrong about the time scale of an event without being wrong in the main part.

BTW If even bush’s government, the arch capitalist over fiend reactionary puppet-of the-oilman, agrees that global warming is happening, don’t you think that there just might be something in the idea?

<font color="#0099cc">

Well lets see. Start at the top and work down [img]smile.gif[/img]

1. Wrong. Not only is the Rainforest in south america NOT gone, it isn't even close(never was), it is even regaining ground that it had lost, it was never even in danger of being gone. This South American Rainforest issue was never about ecology or nature. It was a gigantic scam (originated in the USA most likely in California) to bilk hundreds of millions of dollars out of concerned citizens and the government. This has been a very public revelation in the US of late, though the papers have been more concerned with the Terrorist issues lately.

2. First off, I umm think you shouldnt be quite so inflamatory and antagonistic in your posts about the American head of state. You are most likly to offend some Americans...and we are all striving to keep the peace here. Secondly, Just because he is making a political move doenst mean it is scientificly based..as I have said repeatedly there was no new science no new revelation involved, what was involved was republican seats in the house and senate that are up for election this year, in about 4 months. So I say again, a politician making a policy change does not good science make.
</font>