Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Wow! Bush says humans contribute to global warming

  1. Jul 6, 2005 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 6, 2005 #2
    No, but you clearly haven't been paying attention:

    More http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html [Broken].

    I guess pretending the President does something as dumb as argue civilization does not contribute to climate change is sexier than actually participating in the worthwhile debate.

    Rev Prez
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  4. Jul 6, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    rofl, "originally posted by 4 years ago"
  5. Jul 7, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Regarding the first sentence from the source:
    Back in 2002:
    http://whyfiles.org/updates/080global_warm/index.html [Broken]

    However, that Bush has failed to acknowledge global warming at all is more the point.
    http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_041027.html [Broken]

    Anyone who hasn't been paying attention -- just use any Internet search engine, type in the words "Bush-Global Warming" and these sources are so numerous we could blow out the server posting it all. :rolleyes:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  6. Jul 7, 2005 #5

    Gee, Thanks Rev. Didja notice, that in your quote, it's the National Academy of Sciences that say that humans contribute to climate change? (Last time I looked, Bush wasn't a member.) You didn't quote Bush saying anything about this. For all I know, the article may then go on to say that Bush denounces the NAS. You wouldn't quote something out of context, would you?

    Now, I'll go be a good little researcher and read the rest of the article you quoted. In the meantime, I think SOS' post is just a *little* more reflective of the Administration's position on this issue. (and right in line with: "... the President does something as dumb as argue civilization does not contribute to climate change" -- Apparently repeatedly!) What do you think? Perhaps you think yesterday's admission was par for the course?

    And as far as "participating in the debate," I've been doing that. Andre' took up the gauntlet quite nicely, and we've been having a productive conversation. Pengwuino, bystander, reasonmclus, made contributions as well. Hmmmm.... Let's think..... Did Rev Pres? (patty runs off to check.) No! No, you haven't "participated in the worthwhile debate" currently going on, on the Earth forum! And yet, I have! Hmmmmm!)


    (LOL Incidentally, having "the President" and "sexier" in the same sentence - :rofl: I have never seen the two together before!! Eeeewww! Gnarly!!!)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Jul 7, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hey President Bush was one of the top 50 sexiest men on earth last year or something ;)
  8. Jul 7, 2005 #7
    So, I read the release. It primarily deals with Kyoto. He's hardly endorsing the idea that man-made emissions are driving a warming planet! :uhh: He says that he doesn't see why the US should have to sign on when China and India don't, he says we need more gasoline - because we Americans need to drive our cars (and I assume you are aware that tax breaks are given on gas hogs, but are no longer given on hybrids), he spends more time focusing on what we don't know than what we do know.

    Nowhere have I disagreed with the idea that policy-making is a very tough process. But frankly, I am surprised that you can't see the distinct change in tone between your link:

    "My Cabinet-level working group has <snip> heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many theories and suppositions. "

    And, from yesterday's article:

    "I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles."

    The first is saying "we're not sure and there are lots of possibilities" (and the rest of the release continues along those lines) The second is saying "Anthropogenic CO2 is part of the problem."

    For the record, I completely agree with this:

    The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.

    My disagreement is with how this plays out - for example, I fail to see how tax breaks on hummers, but not on hybrids (that particular break was struck from the energy bill), addresses "the factors that contribute to climate change."


    (Pengwuino: Now, that's just ... wrong. I mean.... Totally wrong. :yuck: :rofl: )
  9. Jul 7, 2005 #8
    Yes, pattylou! I'm glad someone said it (I was tempted, but was shuddering too much to be able to type the words :bugeye: )
  10. Jul 7, 2005 #9
    So where's the source that has Bush on record reversing his stated position that human activity is in large part causing climate change?

    Rev Prez
  11. Jul 7, 2005 #10
    Hey Rev,

    I still haven't see a source where he says:

    I've only yesterday seen a source where he openly acknowledges that humans 'contribute' (a different thing.) Are you referring to your link? In that link, it was the NAS that say that humans contribute. And it doesn't say "in large part."

    Can you give a link?
  12. Jul 7, 2005 #11
    Yes, and President Bush is speaking. Its amazing the length of denial people here go through just to debate strawmen.

    Rev Prez
  13. Jul 7, 2005 #12
    That would be the speech I already provided, the one the President gave in 2001.

    Rev Prez
  14. Jul 7, 2005 #13


    User Avatar

    You sure that was the Earth and not Mars or somewhere? lol
  15. Jul 7, 2005 #14
    Do you, or do you not understand that he didn't state an opinion on whether human activity is contributing?

    And do you, or do you not understand that nowhere in that press release does *anyone* say "human activity is in large part causing climate change."

    You are mis-representing your source.
  16. Jul 7, 2005 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    pattylou, I think the reason he cited the Academy of Sciences is he was citing the source of the information. It doesn't mean that it isn't his opinion, it just means he didn't do the research or publish the paper himself. If he didn't believe it, he wouldn't be citing it.

    Also, scientists do agree that humans are partially, not totally responsible for the climate change. In fact, the exact fraction that is due to human influences is still a topic of considerable debate. Bush's comments are consistent with that.
  17. Jul 7, 2005 #16
    In regards to Kyoto America would be the hardest hit by trying to make the reforms necessary to participate. Even Clinton saw this and did not sign.
    The countries that are involved are working on or utilizing nuclear energy, France itself already runs approximately 80-90% on nuclear. Here we aren't allowed due to the persistence of the lobbyists and because of the attention being aimed mainly at nuclear more and more coal plants are being opened which contribute even more to the polution.
    I know that vehicle polution is the main problem but if we're going to switch over to electric and hybrid the source of the polution wont disappear it will simply be coming from the power plants instead.

    Tax breaks still exist for hybrids.

    The tax break for SUVs mentioned only applies to small business owners and the self employed who purchase any large vehicle for business purposes.

    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html [Broken]
    This is just the first I found but there are plenty of people out there researching the effects of solar activity on earthly climate. Russ is right that scientists are not yet sure to what degree human influence plays in global warming only that the influence does exist and seems significant.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  18. Jul 7, 2005 #17
    SA: Maybe the energy bill hasn't passed both houses yet? I'm pretty sure the tax break for hybrids has been cut out of the energy bill - it was on The News Hour about 6 weeks back. The large vehicle thing - Yeah, I recall that it is for home businesses, but my understanding is that there are easy loopholes to get you the break.

    Russ: Thanks for that. I don't disagree with anything you mentioned. I have never argued that humans are 'largely' responsible --- or otherwise. I have consistently said "What is our best understanding based on research?" And my understanding is exactly what you said.

    From where I am sitting, it looks like Rev Prez called me uninformed and then proceeded to put words in Bush's mouth. I am calling him on it. Apologies if this is considered bad form, but to not do so (IMO) leads to the appearance that (1) I do not follow the global climate change issue and (2) that pointing out that this is the first time Bush has explicitly said "Humans are contributing to Climate Change" is somehow a strawman. It isn't.

    If Rev Prez can find Bush explicitly saying "Humans contribute to climate change" I will retract whatever he wishes me to, on this thread. I seriously doubt he could find such a quote coming from the President prior to the news article that I posted.

    You may think this is a minor thing - or you may not - I certainly do NOT think it is minor. Progress in understanding and addressing climate change is incremental, and this is an important increment in addressing the problem! It allows more breathing room for environmental legislation. It is the first time since Bush's victory speech (wherein he vowed to unite the nation) that he has reached out to the "other" side. The first time! He hasn't done it on any appointments, he hasn't done it on foreign policy. The "Rods from God" issue certainly doesn't appeal to my end of the country.

    One of Bush's scientific advisors (Barton? Maybe?) has told him that he will *never* list CO2 as a pollutant. The Greening Earth society spins CO2 as a "fertilizer." (Nitrogen is a fertilizer too but you don't pour it on indiscriminately, and it is obvious our plants are not starved for CO2!)

    I have never argued that we have all the information on this. In fact, I am more concerned with deforestation and overpopulation, and infectious disease in third world countries, and other environmental concerns, than carbon emissions. But it's clearly all connected.

  19. Jul 7, 2005 #18

    Oops. Missed that the first time.

    Hybrids don't get plugged in. They charge their battery mechanically, from the car. No pollution from the power plants, just better mileage.

    Electric: It would depend on the owner. Ours would be powered off photovoltaics (we currently have a 3 kw system and would upgrade if we got an electric car.)
  20. Jul 7, 2005 #19
    *checks backyard* nope, it's even got a bird or two in it.
  21. Jul 7, 2005 #20
    They're more effiecient, certainly, but still depend on fossil fuels either directly or indirectly. I'm just suggesting that we should be hitting the issue at both ends. It doesn't seem that the current situation is allowing for that. It does seem though that the new energy bill may allow for nuclear, hopefully the right steps are being taken for it to proceed in the best way possible and not perpetuate the current problems with nuclear.

    It apears that Bush's energy bill did include tax breaks for hybrids but this was removed by the House who reasoned that since the vehicles are now in demand the incentive wasn't necessary. The incentives will still exist until 2007 though, it was the expansion of the incentives that was removed. It's a sad state I agree.

    I'm not sure how well they are doing but there are states that are trying to tax people more who have SUVs. I think that the Governator shot that one down though didn't he?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook