By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it," Bush said in a speech that capped two days of talks at a White House-sponsored climate change conference. "We share a common responsibility: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing."
Is this a flip or a flop?
2007-09-28 06:40:32 · 11 answers · asked by cantcu 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I think he gave in to pressure. The environmental terrorists have made it impossible to debate the issue. There's no proof that human activity affects the climate, but that's not stopping these nuts who are bent on destroying the best economy in history. It's crazy. I wish he would stick to his guns and show that science disproves "global warming," but I think he wants to be nice.
He's just accepting an unproven theory as a possibility and saying we should reduce CO2 just in case it's the cause of what turns out to be a natural occurrence. Maybe that's not a complete give in, but it sounds like it to me.
He's also the only president ever to accept that the government should invest in stem-cell research even though the embryonic stem cells are useless. That's a give in to pressure also since the government shouldn't be involved in that sort of science at all, IMO.
And Clinton & Gore will be known throughout history as the political team that did absolutely nothing about "global warming" even though they both seem to believe this incredible hoax.
2007-09-28 07:00:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a grudging acceptance of a growing consensus for purposes of political expediency. Just as denying the phenomenon in the past was politically expedient. I doubt Bush has a real opinion on the topic - he's not a climatologist, afterall.
But, I see nothing wrong with reducing emissions. Even if polution doesn't cause environmental devestation, it still causes smog, which sucks.
The political targets are largely meaningless, though. CA set targets to have a substantial number of emmission-free vehicles on the road by 2002. It didn't happen. Economics are stronger than politics. Until alternative energy sources become viable, they will remain on the fringes.
2007-09-28 06:47:21 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush is known (and revered by the social conservatives) for the dead-certainty of his often incorrect decisions. So, why did he change his position on this issue? Because the evidence is so overwhelming and the consensus among scientists so strong that even he, blissfully ignorant as he is about such affairs, now decides to face up to the fact. Not that he has done anything about it, but acknowledgement of the problem is the first step to addressing it. In any case, Bush will be long known for not doing anything this problem much as he will be infamous for other disasters such as New Orleans and Iraq.
2007-09-29 18:05:52 · answer #3 · answered by Vic 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The good old constant Flip-Flop by GWB and by those who support GWB and his administration.
Al Gore is a much wiser and intelligent man than GWB will ever be. Yes folks, Global Warming is a real and serious problem.
2007-09-28 06:45:31 · answer #4 · answered by deiracefan_219 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I was thinking about that today on my way to work! How can you simultaneously deny global warming and then set goals to combat it? It's a flip and a flop.
2007-09-28 06:44:40 · answer #5 · answered by kleo 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
global warming does exist, and no one is denying that. what people are denying is that we are a main cause of it.
the volcanos that have erupted recently have caused damage that humans could only do in thousands of years.
we survived the ice age.
2007-09-28 06:50:51 · answer #6 · answered by A Lorraine 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
apparently bush does believe in global warming and climate change, otherwise he would still be ignoring the problem, which he's not.
2007-09-28 06:44:43 · answer #7 · answered by §eeker 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
they never said it doesnt exist.
They said it wasnt a man made problem.
Its called a weather pattern.
Its a cycle the earth has been on since far before Bush or anyone else.
Wow two thumbs down already.
Sorry if you half wits do not believe science.
Global warming is a cycle and would happen if there was not one single human on this planet.
Try educating yourselves.
2007-09-28 06:44:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Both! Especially since he makes no mention of doctoring scientific reports early in his presidency.
2007-09-28 06:44:15 · answer #9 · answered by pixy_stix 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Difficult to prove something that doesn't exist to begin with.
2007-09-28 06:44:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋