I thought the Republicans denied that this existed

[The Evil Genius]

Wasn't it the official party line that the Greenhouse effect was/is a hoax? Wonder why the contradictory change in policy?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20020603/ts_nm/environment_usa_dc_2

Bush Administration Blames Humans for Global Warming

Mon Jun 3,12:54 PM ET

By Tom Doggett and Chris Baltimore

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time in a new report that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase significantly over the next two decades due mostly to human activities, but again rejected an international treaty to slow global warming (news - web sites).

The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued -- that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming.

The White House had previously said there was not enough scientific evidence to blame industrial emissions for global warming.

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the administration said in its report.

That position puts the Bush administration at odds with its supporters in the U.S. auto, oil and electricity industries, which contend that more research is needed to determine if the changes are naturally occurring or caused by industry.

In the report sent Friday to the United Nations (news - web sites), the administration forecast that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase 43 percent between 2000 and 2020.

On the same day, all 15 European Union (news - web sites) nations ratified the Kyoto pact -- the only global framework for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and soot.

The United States is the world's largest emitter of so- called greenhouse gases, mostly from utilities and factories.

Last year, the Bush administration triggered international outrage when it announced the United States would not participate in the Kyoto Treaty, a U.N.-backed attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions by industrial countries.

At the time, President Bush (news - web sites) said the Kyoto Treaty's goal of reducing U.S. emissions by about 7 percent from 1990 levels during 2008-2012 would be too costly to the American economy.

Environmental groups said the new U.S. report was a major reversal by Bush administration on the link between global warming and human activity.

"(The report) undercuts everything the president has said about global warming since he took office," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.

The Environmental Protection Agency posted the report on its Webs site, but EPA officials refused to comment on its contents and referred inquires to the State Department, which submitted the report to the United Nations.

ALPINE MEADOWS, ISLANDS AT RISK

The administration warned that increased emissions and rising temperatures will have a greater impact on certain regions of the United States.

The report said average temperatures in the contiguous United States will rise 5 degrees to 9 degrees Fahrenheit during this century.

Some highly sensitive ecosystems, such as Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal barrier islands, will likely disappear, the report said.

Forest regions in the Southeastern United States could see "major species shifts," or major changes in growth patterns.

The report also raises the possibility of drought conditions and changing snowfall patterns in the West, Pacific Northwest and Alaska.

Average sea level rises of 19 inches from global warming could threaten buildings, roads, power lines and other infrastructure in climate-sensitive areas, the report said.

"With higher sea level, coastal regions could be subject to increased wind and flood damage, even if tropical storms do not change in intensity," it said.

Though not referenced in the report, the impacts spell significant dangers for coastal cities like New York City and New Orleans, Clapp said.

With sea level rises referenced in the report, Manhattan would be underwater up to Wall Street and New Orleans would have to undertake a major dike-building effort to hold back the waters, Clapp said.

"The United States needs to take aggressive action now to develop a program to reduce emissions," he said.

VOLUNTARY MEASURES

The administration repeated in the report that voluntary measures to control emissions taken by polluting U.S. companies are the best way to slow the growth of emissions that are believed to cause the earth's atmosphere and oceans to warm.

A voluntary approach is "expected to achieve emission reductions comparable to the average reductions prescribed by the Kyoto agreement, but without the threats to economic growth that rigid national emission limits would bring," the report said.

The White House reiterated its commitment to fighting global warming and touted its plan to reduce the amount of emissions per unit of U.S. gross domestic product by 18 percent over the next decade through a combination of voluntary, incentive-based and mandatory measures.

The administration also pointed out that the United States had led the world in investment in climate change science and since 1990 has spent over $18 billion on such research.

A global summit in Johannesburg is planned for August with 60,000 delegates and 100 heads of state to discuss sustainable development, with climate change issues slated for discussion.

The United States is expected to face heavy criticism at the meeting, especially from the European Union, for not doing more to fight global warming.

[The Evil Genius]

But I guess since those damn liberals said it existed...it can't be true.

[flashback]

I think there was a very subtle shift in policy after Bush's very public and difficult tour of Europe, explaining our rejection of the conclusions of the Kyoto summit. The republicans didn't actually come out and say "Global Warming exists" they just changed their stance from disputing the science of it to disputing the economics of the proposed solutions.

At least, that's how it seemed to me. Of course, if you ask George Will or Brit Hume about it, they'll probably still respond "Global who?"

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Wasn't it the official party line that the Greenhouse effect was/is a hoax? Wonder why the contradictory change in policy?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20020603/ts_nm/environment_usa_dc_2

Bush Administration Blames Humans for Global Warming

Mon Jun 3,12:54 PM ET

By Tom Doggett and Chris Baltimore

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time in a new report that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase significantly over the next two decades due mostly to human activities, but again rejected an international treaty to slow global warming (news - web sites).

The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued -- that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming.

The White House had previously said there was not enough scientific evidence to blame industrial emissions for global warming.

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the administration said in its report.

That position puts the Bush administration at odds with its supporters in the U.S. auto, oil and electricity industries, which contend that more research is needed to determine if the changes are naturally occurring or caused by industry.

In the report sent Friday to the United Nations (news - web sites), the administration forecast that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase 43 percent between 2000 and 2020.

On the same day, all 15 European Union (news - web sites) nations ratified the Kyoto pact -- the only global framework for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and soot.

The United States is the world's largest emitter of so- called greenhouse gases, mostly from utilities and factories.

Last year, the Bush administration triggered international outrage when it announced the United States would not participate in the Kyoto Treaty, a U.N.-backed attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions by industrial countries.

At the time, President Bush (news - web sites) said the Kyoto Treaty's goal of reducing U.S. emissions by about 7 percent from 1990 levels during 2008-2012 would be too costly to the American economy.

Environmental groups said the new U.S. report was a major reversal by Bush administration on the link between global warming and human activity.

"(The report) undercuts everything the president has said about global warming since he took office," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.

The Environmental Protection Agency posted the report on its Webs site, but EPA officials refused to comment on its contents and referred inquires to the State Department, which submitted the report to the United Nations.

ALPINE MEADOWS, ISLANDS AT RISK

The administration warned that increased emissions and rising temperatures will have a greater impact on certain regions of the United States.

The report said average temperatures in the contiguous United States will rise 5 degrees to 9 degrees Fahrenheit during this century.

Some highly sensitive ecosystems, such as Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal barrier islands, will likely disappear, the report said.

Forest regions in the Southeastern United States could see "major species shifts," or major changes in growth patterns.

The report also raises the possibility of drought conditions and changing snowfall patterns in the West, Pacific Northwest and Alaska.

Average sea level rises of 19 inches from global warming could threaten buildings, roads, power lines and other infrastructure in climate-sensitive areas, the report said.

"With higher sea level, coastal regions could be subject to increased wind and flood damage, even if tropical storms do not change in intensity," it said.

Though not referenced in the report, the impacts spell significant dangers for coastal cities like New York City and New Orleans, Clapp said.

With sea level rises referenced in the report, Manhattan would be underwater up to Wall Street and New Orleans would have to undertake a major dike-building effort to hold back the waters, Clapp said.

"The United States needs to take aggressive action now to develop a program to reduce emissions," he said.

VOLUNTARY MEASURES

The administration repeated in the report that voluntary measures to control emissions taken by polluting U.S. companies are the best way to slow the growth of emissions that are believed to cause the earth's atmosphere and oceans to warm.

A voluntary approach is "expected to achieve emission reductions comparable to the average reductions prescribed by the Kyoto agreement, but without the threats to economic growth that rigid national emission limits would bring," the report said.

The White House reiterated its commitment to fighting global warming and touted its plan to reduce the amount of emissions per unit of U.S. gross domestic product by 18 percent over the next decade through a combination of voluntary, incentive-based and mandatory measures.

The administration also pointed out that the United States had led the world in investment in climate change science and since 1990 has spent over $18 billion on such research.

A global summit in Johannesburg is planned for August with 60,000 delegates and 100 heads of state to discuss sustainable development, with climate change issues slated for discussion.

The United States is expected to face heavy criticism at the meeting, especially from the European Union, for not doing more to fight global warming.

I think you are getting your words mixed up there genius. The greenhouse effect is a scientific process.

"The greenhouse effect results from 'the dirty of the atmospheric infrared window' by some atmospheric trace gases, permitting incoming solar radiation to reach the surface of the Earth unhindered but restricting the outward flow of infrared radiation. These atmospheric trace gases are referred as greenhouse gases. They absorb and reradiate this outgoing radiation, effectively storing some of the heat in the atmosphere, thus producing a net warming of the surface." Global warming is a result of that process.

Anyway, what the article fails to mention is that we now believe man made emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect will not have the impact on the climate as we once thought. The vast majority of people in my area of work think that global warming is caused more by natural cycles then by man made emissions. It is true that man made emissions have some impact on the climate but that impact is not as extreme as once thought. I think we still need to lower emissions but for pollution reasons only.

Most of the climate debate is politically motivated anyway.

Here are some links that give the counter opinion...

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1295/

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1246/

[The Evil Genius]

Maybe so...

But there is also the notion that the Greenhouse effect is

"the addition carbon diozide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a perilous rate". Which, is what, Bush was saying that is causing the global warming.

Then there is this from the EPAs website...but hey...what do they know

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/index.html

What Are Greenhouse Gases?

Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities.

Naturally occuring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned.

Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid waste landfills, and the raising of livestock.

Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.

Very powerful greenhouse gases that are not naturally occurring include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are generated in a variety of industrial processes.

Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Often, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are presented in units of millions of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which weights each gas by its GWP value, or Global Warming Potential.

[88Comrade2000]

Uh, there's an election in 2004. Bush a calculating political person just like Der Slickmister Bill was.

Everything W is doing, is geared to his reelection.

Hate to tell you W, but you will face a conservative challenge to your 2004 nomination.

[Kilmer17]

It doesnt exist.

And neither does this thread. It's all part of a computer generated program designed to keep humans.....

oh well, you get the drift.

[The Evil Genius]

All i was trying to do was point out some hypocracy.

Rather than stating that we ****ed up, the Far Right has repeatedly stuck to the notion that "trees cause pollution" and that Global Warming was a myth.

Now, the head of the party has come out and said that global warming (caused BY the greenhouse effect) is indeed happening.

Funny how this happened without an official announcement that, hey, we (the republican party) were wrong about this for a long time (in order to protect big business).

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Maybe so...

But there is also the notion that the Greenhouse effect is

"the addition carbon diozide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a perilous rate". Which, is what, Bush was saying that is causing the global warming.

Then there is this from the EPAs website...but hey...what do they know

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/index.html

What Are Greenhouse Gases?

Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities.

Naturally occuring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned.

Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid waste landfills, and the raising of livestock.

Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.

Very powerful greenhouse gases that are not naturally occurring include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are generated in a variety of industrial processes.

Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Often, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are presented in units of millions of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which weights each gas by its GWP value, or Global Warming Potential.

First or all, Bush NEVER came out and said anything about global warming. I don't know why you keep saying that. It was the EPA that did and you don't think there are people in the EPA that are biased even thought they work for the Bush admin? ! If you think there aren't any then you have a lot to learn.

Furthermore, I don't need a lession on what traces gases cause global warming ok. What does that have to do with what I said anyway?

Global warming on the scale the "chicken littles" are screaming about is a myth. The data shows that madmade effects on the climate will not have the huge impact as once thought. Why can't you tree huggers get that through your fat heads?:doh:

[OrangeSkin]

Quite honestly, I'd rather keep the economy moving than sit around hugging trees. Global warming is an issue, but not one at the top of everybody's list. The folks in the stone age couldn't figure out how to make a fire, but hey, the environment was in fabulous shape!

[mardi gras skin]

Europe is not cleaner than us. We have a greater amount of pollution but we have a much better rate of pollution per production of goods. If we make 100 cars with and they make 50, then they would have to produce half the pollution to be as clean as we are. That is not the case. Most of the black forest in Germany is dead. Less than 10 years ago, they didn't even require catalytic converters on their cars because it reduced performance (not sure if they've ever made that basic environmental protection leap). When does France dump their their huge production of nuclear waste?

Their pseudo-socialistic governments are the ones playing catch up.

[The Evil Genius]

I don't know why I bother, maybe its cause you ****ing people are too stupid to read...

First or all, Bush NEVER came out and said anything about global warming.

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the administration said in its report."

What would you call that ****ing quote from the Administration? What the **** do you think rising global mean surface tempartures are? Do I have to explain it on a 3rd grade reading level?

What does this have to do what you said - well you said this

Anyway, what the article fails to mention is that we now believe man made emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect will not have the impact on the climate as we once thought."

I showed you the scientific error in your thought process with this Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs (which are mostly MANMADE) are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide.

Then you follow it with this quote

Global warming on the scale the "chicken littles" are screaming about is a myth. The data shows that madmade effects on the climate will not have the huge impact as once thought.

Which even the BUSH administration contradicts now with their suprising support of the EPAs paper. Bush's own comments contradict you - his comments that

acknowledge for the first time that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase significantly over the next two decades due mostly to human activities.

Now I am no politician, but I think Bush doesn't throw the word out "significant" when he is just crying chicken little. Moreover, I would prefer that you list the "data that shows that madmade effects on the climate will not have the huge impact as once thought."

Seems like the republicans, as well as, what did you guys call them?, oh yeah, the tree huggers, are crying chicken little then.

I guess it won't matter anyways who's right - I don't plan on being here in 100 years when parts of NYC, New Orleans, and San Fran are under water

[dchogs]

. The folks in the stone age couldn't figure out how to make a fire, but hey, the environment was in fabulous shape!

what is more important: the long term survival of our planet or the production of a few thousand more cars?

our (not just the USA, but the world population) self centered domination of the world and over production is destroying the planet. while scientific evidence can be used by both sides to support their positions, we are faced with ecological problems that are man made in origin.

should we go back to the stone ages? no. but we do need to live in a manner that more harmonious with our planet.

[The Evil Genius]

Watch out dchogs, that progressive thinking might get you labeled as un-american by the dittoheads here.

[dchogs]

lol...

i am a republican by the by.

we also have to look at what "significant" means. will the ecological changes be significant to us? probably not. but we are one of the most adaptable, if not the most adaptable, species on the planet. we can survive a global temp. change of 10 degree celsius without out much issue. other species, however, cannot. we're already killing other species at an alarming rate with our global expansion and land domination. do we really need to eliminate a stable and balanced ecosystem in favor of more cars, bigger houses, and a better mouse trap?

[The Evil Genius]

Well, a 10 degree change in temp would be HUGE.

It would help the famers in the midwest, but it would mean that parts of New Orleans, NYC, and San Fran were likely under water.

But hey, thats okay - as long as we don't hurt big business, oil, or the car industry.

[skinsfan44]

If anyone had listen to Rush Limbaugh today(6/4) you would know what Bush really said. Go to his web site at www.rushlimbaugh.com and read it for yourself. And yes, I am a dittohead.

[The Evil Genius]

If anyone had listen to Rush Limbaugh today(6/4) you would know what Bush really said.

Does Rush write or think for President Bush? This is the same Rush that continues to spew Reagan's famous line that "Trees cause pollution". Right?

Seriously though, I did read that Bush spoke out today against the EPAs report. A report by an agency whose top officials are appointed by, coincidentally, Predisent Bush. Must be a huge embarassment for him.

The fact that he doesn't agree with the report appears to be more based on $ rather than science. The report supports the need to sign the Kyoto treaty (or some other form of it) which would severely change the way that big business is allowed to screw the environment.

Bush is quoted that he does "not support the Kyoto treaty, the Kyoto treaty would severely damage the United States economy, and I (Bush) don't accept that." Notice how he doesn't say anything about the science that the Treaty is based on - rather that he doesn't support the treaty becuase of financial implications. Nevermind the fact that the ENTIRE EURPOEAN UNION and Japan have adopted it.

Anyways it really doesnt matter - since its all either a hoax or since I wont be around in 100 years to see the Earth covered by more waters.

[The Evil Genius]

Since the EPA is headed by former NJ Governor and still Republican Christine Todd Whitman - I guess their is no chance that she will be afforded the opportunity to run for Pres or VP in 4 or 8 years.

Must be a huge embarassment for the GOP.

[Yomar]

56, I think you mentioned that you work in some field involving the study of the Greenhouse Effect. I was wondering what you do, if you don't mind my asking?

[OrangeSkin]

Evil Genius - How about you just make your way over to Europe so you can join the "enlightened" folks over there. After all, America is a bunch of money grubbing conservatives that can't grasp the higher intelligence known only to liberals. Bottom line is, we're the most powerful country in the world, and to keep it that way, we need to concentrate on blowing up caves in Afghanistan. Not eating tofu and chaining ourselves to trees.

[The Evil Genius]

See thats the typical dumb**** response that people get when they ask questions and defy the radical right.

People say that those who don't agree with me - they should just go to another country - because this is AMERICA boy and we don't think progressively here. We do what our daddy's did and what is the perceived norm.

We say - go live with the Europeans - you tree hugging liberal. How dare you go against what the President says - unless he is one of those Democrats.

Funny thing is - I voted Republican last election. But then - I guess I wouldn't expect all of you to see past what Mommy and Daddy told us - or for that matter - Rush Limbaugh.

[dchogs]

from orangeskin: Bottom line is, we're the most powerful country in the world

sure that is true, but what is the appeal of being the "rulers" of a crumbling empire?

secondly, for the sake of intelligent argument, belittling others is not a great way of furthering a position and having the possibility of converting others to your point of view. the bashing in your last post simple makes you look as ignorant as you claim others to be. (note: i did not say that you ARE ignorant. i said speaking in such ways makes you LOOK ignorant.)

[Skins24]

Wow Evil, calm down...

1. I really don't think the question is whether global warming is real or not, it's whether humans are the main cause. I personally don't think we're the main cause. I'd say we humans cover oh about 10% of the earth. If that 10% can significantly affect 90% then, wow! Sure global warming is real, sure we may have caused it to accelerate a little more than it would have. But us the main cause? no.

1 volcano can spew out more atmostphere harming materials than humans can ever purduce.

2. We were putting up much more harmful chemicals doing much more damage to our atmostphere in the 1800's and early 1900's. Why wasn't there a big increase in global warming then?

3.

Well, a 10 degree change in temp would be HUGE.

It sure would. But it won't happen in your lifetime. (or your childrens or childrens children)

4. The earth and weather goes in cycles. (what goes around comes around litterally)

Why can't we just be in a warming cycle? We've had a couple ice ages, why not have a couple warm ages?

5. What's with all the doomsday stuff?

Whole cities would be under water!

We'll go back to the stone age!

Temperatures of 200 degrees!

Hurrincanes with 300 mph winds!

If it's one thing humans are good at, it's adapting. If all that stuff did happen...we'll survive.

But...do you honestly believe it'll get that bad?

Our air is already significantly improving.

Look at the Ozone hole for example. It's shrinking. The ice in antartica is getting thicker (despite all the icebergs).

I think people give to much power to humans. If we are able to destroy the earth we would have done it a long time ago.

6. And finally, the rate at which global warming is occuring varies greatly. Most instruments on the ground measure the temps in big cities. Of course they're going to be high, with the heat island effect and all. But more accurate satallites show the earth not warming as much as ground based instruments say they are.

Just my 2 cents (more like 20 cents)

rskin24 - meterorology major

[The Evil Genius]

Thanks all for the mostly intelligent debate. :laugh:

Note - I never said entire cities would be underwater when/if a 10 degree change in mean temp occurred - I said parts of NYC, SF, and New Orleans would most likely be under water if this occurred.

Also, I said it really doesn't matter since I won't be around in 100 years to see it happen.

Also, I take exception to this quote

I think people give to much power to humans. If we are able to destroy the earth we would have done it a long time ago.

I think that a major change in the Earth's climate would most likely be caused by a major occurrence. If that major occurrence is caused by something man has done - most likely he has done it over hundreds or thousands of years (unless he has nuked the planet!). The diminishing ozone layer or the buildup of greenhouse gases is not a new occurrence. You are right, the US during its Industrial Age was a polluting planet. However, I would bet you that the US pollutes now more than it did the in the 1800's - simply based on 2 things - autos and increased population.

Anyways - thanks again for all the insight.