No--but he'll be known as Goddamned Warmonger Bush.
2007-10-16 05:32:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
2⤋
That is so cool!!!!!!!!!
Are you the first to coin this phrase and see this coincidence between the initials of President Bush and Global Warming?
I doubt, though, that he'll be blamed solely for the delay in a response, because major industry trends and changes tend to take years anyway and not weeks and months. But I'm sure there'll be some good articles written about this subject with a lot of facts and figures from not only the Bush era, but also the Clinton years and, in fact, all the way back to the 1970s.
2007-10-16 07:00:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by endpov 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
More like 8 years delaying action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Although he's acknowledged that humans are the primary cause of the current warming since 2005, Bush has continued to simply pay lip service to the issue while undermining worldwide greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
I think Global Warming Bush would be a fitting name.
2007-10-16 05:37:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dana1981 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Here's Global Warming Bush... http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/%20Year%202005/a05-03-enviroment/0503-16-StillWarming.html and here's a video featuring him http://www.dailymotion.com/related/224495/video/xijb9_bush-and-global-warming/1
Bush is already been viewed around the world as a bogey man by many people. In a recent 47 nation environmental survey there's now 5 times as many countries that have a less favourable view of the US then there are those with a positive view - http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256
2007-10-16 08:09:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Trevor 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Have you seen the GW Bush administration's Dept. of Energy website? Looks like they are working on alternative fuels. What would you like them to do, raise your taxes even more? They are able to do research with the tax money they have. Finding a clean source of energy is the best solution to reduce harmful emissions.
2007-10-16 08:21:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Larry 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, i thought according to you guys global warming was not a politcal issue therefor according to you guys Bush should not be significant to global warming and everyone should do somthing. But I most have forgot the libearls always change their views on issues. Global warming though is no big concern it is just the natural cycle of the planet.
2007-10-16 18:19:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think this will be overshadowed by the rest of his legacy. Fighting a failed war, encouraging terrorism, turning the land of the free into a nation of torturers, bankrupting the world's richest nation and destroying our international reputation.
2007-10-16 05:57:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by TG 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
And what did the last administration do about it? According to Al he has been working on it for 30 years. The Clinton years also ignored it.
You Bush haters are funny.
2007-10-16 06:29:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by GABY 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Honestly, he just hasn't been THAT important.
Some nations that signed Kyoto haven't lived up to even those modest commitments.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Hopefully, that's changing.
2007-10-16 06:22:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Bob 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
you little rug rats wont be asking ANY questions about history. thats not what you do. You'll be to busy dodging peices of the sky during the next hot button emergency that comes up.
2007-10-16 13:30:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by matthound 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think global warming will be the least of his legacies. The sooner that man is out of office the better it will be for the rest of us.
2007-10-16 05:38:36
·
answer #11
·
answered by ?????????????????????? 3
·
3⤊
2⤋