President Bush agreed, there is global warming. He said, learn to live with it. Is that a good answer ?

Answer 1

I think it's a good answer, perhaps he listened to Senator Inhofe.

<<< >>>>>>>


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=dcc7c65f-802a-23ad-4668-0aec926c60c8&Region_id=&Issue_id=e49f29f7-802a-23ad-483b-0d16e87b0811


EDIT:

If the global warming scare mongers stopped tommorow, more coal power plants would begin being built, the price of oil and natural gas would begin dropping, and the major oil companies would begin to see diminished profits. The oil companies are profiting more from the Global warming scare mongers more than any other entity.

Answer 2

The hard truth is, this is the only answer. Consider the following:

Prehistoric temperature records indicate that past global temperature maximums have been on the order of 3 degrees Celsius higher than current temperatures

The IPCC best estimate for global climate change is that global temperatures will rise to a level between 3 and 4 degrees higher than current temperature levels.

In simple terms, it is going to get hotter no matter what we do. Even if we somehow managed to remove all of the excess CO2 we have created from the atmosphere, it will still most likely get about 3 degrees C hotter. It is going to happen, so we would be best served if everyone would quit all of the hand wringing and finger pointing and start using our available resources preparing for the inevitable.

Answer 3

A rather blunt answer, but it's ok. Global warming (and cooling) are things that happen. It's been going on since the birth of this planet. Also why is it when people say humans are causing it, does everyone point to the USA? We are not the only country with smoke stacks and cars.
"Learn to live with it" is not some right wing, neo-con, tardo answer as some have said. It is to the point. What little bit of damage we are doing to the earth has been going on since the birth of the industrial age (the 19th century). It's not something that just happened since W became President. It's happening (but not as bad as Al Gore says), so we must live with it. Do your part to help and quit trying to blame it on someone else. You use a computer, you use electricity, you drive a car, you bathe...you are part of the problem also. Do your part instead of yelling for someone else to do theirs.

Answer 4

I guess he's just being honest. Most scientists say it's not caused by anything humans or animals are doing.

So if we're not causing it and can't stop it, we need to accept it and live with it.

Actually, history shows extreme prosperity during the warming periods of our planet. So enjoy it while it lasts and don't let the kooks frighten you with all the talk about the earth burning up or flooding or any other such nonsense. There's just no scientific proof of it to be found.

Answer 5

It is the only answer that he is qualified to give. All the laws are there except the science has been missing and until you have the science, the laws are going to be argued.

We have this meticulous process where universities and education teach industry standards. All the diverse professionals learning to work together to build a sustainable economy. In the same schools, media students, political science, administration are learning their contribution to the process.

The idea behind communities is that everyone from the moms, garbage collectors, engineers, construction, policing, education all work together to get the job done.

At the end of the day, every department and every professional is assuming other professionals are getting the job done so we should expect accurate science on climate change or any issue.

At the end of the day, governments and countries are trying to develop policy on the science they assume is accurate.

Here is this domino effect from the tree being cut down to development and the effect on the environment that sustains all life. It better be accurate because the domino effect of missing science will be very real as far as impacting our lives.

Keeping this short, my background is architecture, engineering, electrical energy provision, etc. I have national certification in electrical energy provision.

My architecture background includes building design where we take the climate information for the area and build communities that don't impose on the environment. The energy consumption, emissions, fire safety and overall compliance is based on the climatic data provided by the government.

Sounds pretty efficient except architects use calculators for those design temperatures. Calculators are only accurate to many decimal points if the inputted data is correct.

I participated in 18 years of unprecedented temperature research qualifying building performance and the design temperatures for buildings.

The results contradicted my own education in the calculator because although all the laws were there about solar impact, we couldn't see it.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html to see solar impact. Buildings were assumed to be urban heat islands, not urban heat generators generating heat close to boiling temperature. After you have seen that page, ask an architect what would happen to a building designed for a maximum of 92 degrees F when it is subjected to 198 degrees F?

We are treating the symptoms with ozone depleting refrigerants in 100% of the building applications. Air conditioning is in fact refrigeration and something we are trying to eliminate the use of. The air conditioning requires 1000s of watts per hour of wasted electrical generation, emissions, toxins and we aren't discussing the radiated heat atmospherically. Put heaters 198 degrees in your environment, what happens? It heats up, plants are drier, water evaporates, hydrological cycles change.

In the winter solar radiation is still generating extreme heat in Canada and northern countries...it means the globe will warm.

The domino effect of the missed information changes the calculations for climate change and carbon credits.

The process couldn't see it before, now they can and they better address this heat in every state, we aren't insured for it.

Imagine the simple fix, functional landscaping, shade and 100% of this problem belongs to developers. All municipalities have to ask is "What properties did you use on the solar exposed exterior to ensure it doesn't generate heat"

Walls are designed for the temperature they will be subjected too, don't generate the heat.

Imagine California got knocked off the electrical grid during heat waves by treating a heat symptom, 100% of it is avoidable.

I would like George bush to come forward and recommend a UV resistant product to deal with the generated heat and that would eliminate the US electrical generation for summer air conditioning. That would eliminate the heat, the emissions and the toxins without the loss of a job.

Due to the fact we couldn't see how buildings were functioning, we have deregulated this industry and allowed home owners to take the process out of the equation with a coat of paint on the exterior. Home Depot made over 70 billion last year, we are going to pay for that because they have in effect undone government objectives and codes.

This isn't about fault, this is about survival as a species. Taking buildings outside their design impacts every function. The buildings expand and contract beyond design, that affects fire separations and heat loss.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatloss.html to see the use of fossil fuels in the heating of buildings. It promises to shock you.

Now go to http://www.thermoguy.com and scroll down to the picture of the fetus where you can link to a study on polluted newborns. The toxicity ratio is 100% and that means cancers as well as other challenges to a baby without a developed immune system.

Our opinion isn't contradictory, it is simply taking temperature measurement out of the calculator. We used 17,000 hours of the most advanced thermal imaging applications in the world.

George Bush's opinion is to live with it? We won't live at all with it and no one is exempt. There won't be a place for the wealthy to avoid this.

I am not a naysayer or involved in politics, my job as a consultant is to advise consultants to get the job done.

Answer 6

It's good advice.

It's one thing to think we CAUSED global warming, but quite another to think we can do anything about it.

Global warming is here. You had BETTER learn to live with it.

Answer 7

No, it is not a good answer.

Let's do a little exercise in exposing the "hidden text" (as social scientists call it:"

>"Learnto live with global warming"
>>>Because the oil companies are making tons of money, and I (Bush) am getting my cut--and we have no intention in giving up one thin dime, no matter how much damage we do to teh environment or how many people suffer in the process.

Answer 8

That's an irresponsible answer. He simply does not have the guts to face up to a problem.

How to live with heat waves? Turn on the air-con. How to live with floods? Build a barrier around your house. How to live with drought? Make your own water.

That's probably what he'll say.

Answer 9

So what is the perfect climate, and when did Ma (Earth) experience it?

Answer 10

its not a good answer it is a typical answer from a neo con tard, but seriously, he is kinda right, there isnt much we can do, we are a day late and a dollar short on this one, so we are going to have to learn to live with it, and all his neo con buddies are gonna learn how to make money off of it and exploit the american people because of it, but alas this is the world we live in, and that is how the world turns, in the favor of the rich at any cost, even if the cost is our planet