Marburger may not have time to read all the great science that is *only* available on the internet that proves anthropogenic CO2 is not causing the global warming observed over the last 25 years. Without that information, it is easy to get led astray by the peer-reviewed literature.
2007-09-16 06:01:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by gcnp58 7
·
5⤊
4⤋
Its pretty clear that this administration has been "told" or has an understanding that NOTHING is to happen with regard to global warming or making this country actually more secure. Who is president, An EX oil-man, Who's vice president an EX and future oil-man. What is the big surprise that they tow the company line to be the country's policy. What is comforting is that despite the conservative demonization of Al Gore as being the long lost illegitimate son of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. That the science is essentially so incontrovertibly sound and that we as a nation would probably do well to do SOMETHING / ANYTHING about the problem. We now as a nation understand that it's not really enough that an alcoholic doesn't drink anymore it's really that there is a set of things they can't do very well and CHANGE their viewpoint is one of them. My point is this, at a certain point, it doesn't matter if you believe in global warming, it will just be the case that rain doesn't fall where it used to , that food doesn't grow that deserts are where fields used to be, who cares what you call it , what we will know then as opposed to know is that it will have been our fault. Maybe it was unavoidable and maybe it wasn't but we'll be screwed anyway. Just talk to the folks in the Carolina and Georgia who don't have any water left in their reservoirs if they think global warming is BS. All Bush has done was delay long enough to take a manageable economic situation and turn it into an unmanageable environmental and economic crisis.
2016-05-21 00:58:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by lacy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably because he believes it to be the case. President Bush himself has stated that he believes that human activities have contributed to global warming as well. This doesn't make it a fact. And no one, at least no one with the brains God gave a goose, doubts that global temperatures are on the increase so there are very few "global warming doubters". What is at issue is the extent of human activities have contributed and what if anything should be done.
And incidently, in scientific circles, 90% certainty is not considered a very high level of certainty. It is not two sigma (which is 95% certainty) and is certainly not 3 sigma (99%) certainty. Two sigma is the usual criteria for saying you have a very good indication of cause and effect. Three sigma is essentially certainty. If you don't know what sigma is, you should probably not be in a real scientific discussion.
2007-09-16 06:02:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
He probably sat for a while after reading the IPCC summary and attempted to place a percentage on the IPCC's finding about wether humans have altered the climate on the choices: likely and more likely than not. He probably figured "more likely than not" meant 90%, and "likely" meant 75%, so he went with more likely than not, and then said I feel like such an idiot for having to say this, are your sure it was neccesary Mr. President. And the president said, yea, it's a whole lot better to appease these idiot socialists than it is to argue with them, because were going to do whatever we want to do anyway.
That's why I think he said it.
2007-09-16 14:06:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Tomcat 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Of course they can, We can't imagine the lengths a conspiracy theorists mind will go to before they admits they might have been wrong.
Personally, my theory is that he was allowed to say it at this time due to the recent magic bullet called biofuels, which may not actually emit any less C02, allows agribussiness to continue raping the soil structure, takes pressure off the Iraqi war, puts up food prices afferting the worlds poor, is grown in the good ol' U.S.A. and allows American SUV drivers to fill thier tank with a clean conscience because what they are putting in thier tank has the prefix 'bio'.
2007-09-16 06:03:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by John Sol 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
It's all about the legacy at this point with Bush. He didn't catch bin Ladin, the Iraq War - whether it finally turns out well or gets worse - will be viewed as poorly managed or anything but a "crowning" achievement, didn't reform Social Security, didn't pass sweeping immigration reform...at this point, I have to believe he wants to have something "good" that people will remember him for.
So, Dana, are we to believe that you honestly trust the credibility of Bush's adviser(s)? If he had come out firmly against AGW, you would have been calling him a shill.
Does the fact that bin Ladin came out against man-made global warming change YOUR mind about the validity of the science?
I didn't think so.
This question belongs in the politics section.
2007-09-16 15:06:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by 3DM 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Probably because it's the politically correct way of thinking. It wouldn't serve a politician well to dispute the reality of global warming, even if they knew better.
2007-09-16 13:42:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by bootedbylibsx2 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
So let me get this straight. If an scientist says that global warming is man made, it is a fact. If he doubts it, then he is in the pockets of big oil. I am glad that has been cleared up.
2007-09-16 07:15:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by eric c 5
·
4⤊
3⤋
He said it probably to discredit Al Gore. Isn;'t that just like a republican!
2007-09-16 13:49:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by cosmicmama 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is 90% certainty fact? Would you fly on an airplane that was 90% certain to not crash?
When did probably by politicians take place of real science?
Should politicians define the value of pi?
Why do people believe things said by politicians as absolute scientific fact? No wonder why there's so much money spend on this bs.
2007-09-16 08:54:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Dr Jello 7
·
4⤊
6⤋