Salon/ Bush: Global warming is just hot air

[kskiska]

The planet's getting hotter, ecosystems are going haywire, government scientists know it -- and still the president denies there's a problem. Guess which industry continues to fuel his campaign?

By Katharine Mieszkowski

Don't expect President Bush to discuss global warming -- the world's most serious environmental problem -- on the campaign trail in the next eight weeks. The former oilman from Texas doesn't dare alienate his friends in the fossil fuel and auto industries, prime purveyors of global warming. Bush still refuses to admit that burning Chevron with Techron in our Jeep Grand Cherokees, not to mention megatons of coal in our power plants, has brought us 19 of the 20 hottest years on record since 1980.

"You're talking about a president who says that the jury is out on evolution, so what possible evidence would you need to muster to prove the existence of global warming?" says Robert F. Kennedy Jr., author of the new book "Crimes Against Nature." "We've got polar ice caps melting, glaciers disappearing all over the world, ocean levels rising, coral reefs dying. But these people are flat-earthers."

In fact, Bush's see-no-evil, hear-no-evil stance on global warming is so intractable that even when his own administration's scientists weigh in on the issue, he simply won't hear of it.

(snip)

When the New York Times quizzed Bush about why his scientists had shifted their positions on what caused global warming, he appeared entirely ignorant that they had. "I don't think we did," he said. When tipped off to the paper's coverage of the report, he added: "Oh, OK, well, that's got to be true." Maybe he really doesn't read the newspapers. His aides then assured reporters that, no, this report wouldn't signal any change in his policies around climate change.

more…
http://salon.com/tech/feature/2004/09/10/bush/index.html

[hatrack]

1. My favorite take on this question? Ol' Rewhorable, Gregg Easterbrook

There was a post on this board about two nights back. It was a link to a political journal (Washington Monthly?) asking a wide variety of people about what a 2nd Bush term would mean.

Easterbrook opined that Bush would grab the bull by the horns and tackle the threat of climate change, leading the world into a new era of environmental stewardship.

Sure, right. Right after he comes out as bisexual on his way to the Pope's wedding.

[rooboy]

3. I saw that too...a whole new level in delusional thought. n/t

[OneBlueSky]

2. maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but Kerry should attack Bush . . .

on his environmental record, hard and repeatedly . . . he should issue a statement itemizing the executive orders and regulatory changes that he would reverse when elected . . . and he should convene a large contingent of scientists, including Nobel prize winners, to state uneqivocally that the Bush administration is an environmental disaster both for the US and the planet . . .

people DO care about the environment, and the issue transcends both political and social divisions . . . but most have no idea of just how abysmal Bush's record is, thanks to the sterling job that our corporate media does monitoring and reporting that record (sarcasm intended) . . .

Kerry is missing a huge opportunity by not making this a central campaign issue . . . the fact that Bush does NOT want the issue to be central to the campaign is a sure sign that it should be . . .