Bush seeks new image on global warming By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 28 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush called on the world's worst polluters Friday to come together to set a goal for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate to heat up. He didn't exempt his own country from the list.
"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
06:44:26
·
8 answers
·
asked by
cantcu
7
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
Not True
The Question is how much does man made activity change the climate?
Liberals think the world will end next week unless we all start riding bikes to work.
I disagree.....
2007-09-28 06:47:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4
·
5⤊
1⤋
I don't deny that the greenhouse effect and global warming are occurring. Quite the contrary, they are observable phenomenon. What I question, like many scientists are the following 2 questions.
1) What part of the net effect is man made
2) What can we reasonably do to combat the effects which will not destroy the global economy.
To date neither of these questions have been reasonably answered. Instead what we have is people talking about consensus. Consensus is not science and never will be. Some people want to stifle all debate or continued research on this issue and frankly that worries more than the potential effects themselves because it is a completely irrational opinion. Even if we think we know the answers we should never stop asking questions.
2007-09-28 13:58:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bryan 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well I don't think it's so much that people don't believe in it. They just don't want to admit that they believe in it. If one states that he believes in something, then he is compelled to do something about it. Stating that they don't believe in it absolves them from having to do anything about it.
The bottom line is that most of us aren't willing to do anything to reduce greenhouse gases. We could ride bikes to work or carpool, but we don't because we prefer to drive our own cars. We buy giant SUVs when we are single with no children, and no need for a large vehicle just because it's what we want. We don't recycle because it's too much trouble.
Imagine what would be the second and third order efffects of our president admitting that Global Warming exists...we'd have to tighten EPA regulations. That would cause a whole new bureaucracy which will generate the need for more taxes, and cause major companies to change the way they do business, thus driving up the cost of goods because they will pass the cost on to the consumer.
We will have to drive smaller and fewer cars or improve technology for cars. The research and development costs for more efficient cars will be outrageous, and they'll pass the cost on to the consumer.
I guess in essence, any people don't think changing is worth the trouble, after all, their lives here are finite, and they may as well have what they want while they're alive.
2007-09-28 14:01:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kitten S 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
No one is saying that spewing pollutants into the air is a good thing, and no one can argue that the earth's overall average temp has risen 1-1.5 degrees over the last 100years. The disagreement comes in over if humans have in anyway caused or contributed to it in any meaningful way. I just can't understand why alarmist liberals think that conservative and or Republicans are just hellbent on destroying the planet it's just ridiculous. Liberals ensnared in the Global Warming cult wish to control peoples lives in the same way they accuse people who disagree with them supposedly do.
2007-09-28 13:55:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by jasonzbtzl 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
He probably knows that it's for real, and by doing this his name can be in the history books as a fighter for global warming, when 200 years from now people will be wearing oxygen masks. He's an individualistic scumbag.
2007-09-28 13:48:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by miXzo 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
To temporarily assuage the global-warming moonies.
Personally, I hope the Honda mini-bike I had as a youth is responsible for polar bears becoming homeless.
2007-09-28 13:51:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kubla Con 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
As long as Bush doesn't promote sacrificing virgins in the name of the climate God, he can say what he wants
2007-09-28 14:04:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Well, many don't believe Islamic terrorists are a threat. Personally, I have not seen global warming blowing stuff up.
2007-09-28 13:54:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋