In article ,
owl wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:51:35 GMT, "Steve Bloom"
wrote:

"A campaign to avoid action is a very different beef from rejecting the
problem or the connection."

Owl, this is only true if the person doing the rejection is making an honest
attempt to consider the issue.

Steve, that's not the only time it's true. And in this case, that
restriction is false - Bush knows about the warming, and he accepts
the connection - it's the remediation action, in any shape or form
that has mandatory on it, that he's fighting.

Imo, it's anything but a co-incidence that the '2003 Study' Lloyd
referred to has 2007 and 2012 target dates on it. It's anything but a
co-incidence that a band of science sorcerers around the
Administration cry chicken-little at the problem, while another
smaller of group of people in the Administration say it's a known and
action could be 'in the pipe' shortly.

Bush has laid it out very clearly - he's responsible for the welfare
of the American people, and it is not in the best interests of the
American people to clean it up. It gets down to terrible ROI:- and
the American voters bought the package.

Bush isn't. In his case, the campaign to
avoid action is the means of rejection. Of course this approach is not
unique to him.

Altho it could be a word game to join those dots, I'll agree that
there are cases where rejection is behind a refusal to act. In Bush's
case, however, that isn't the case. If anything, that is the most
frustrating part about it - the tactic of proving there's a problem or
joining the dots to pollution won't work. He says "Yabut" and then
talks jobs and energy supply.

Owl:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...046363,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0609-02.htm

And:

"The latest example of this ostrichlike behavior involves some heavy-handed
censorship of a draft report that is due out next week from the Environmental
Protection Agency. As described by Andrew Revkin and Katharine Seelye in The
New York Times, the report was intended to provide the first comprehensive
review of what is known about environmental problems and what gaps in
understanding remain to be filled. But by the time the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget finished with it
and hammered the Environmental Protection Agency into submission, a long
section on the risks posed by rising global temperatures was reduced to a
noncommittal paragraph.

Gone is any mention that the 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade
in the last thousand years in the Northern Hemisphere. Gone, also, is a
judgment by the National Research Council about the likely human contributions
to global warming, though the evidence falls short of conclusive proof. Gone,
too, is an introductory statement that "Climate change has global consequences
for human health and the environment." All that is left in the report is some
pablum about the complexities of the issue and the research that is needed to
resolve the uncertainties.

This is the second shameful case of censorship involving global warming in
less than a year. Last September, a whole chapter on climate was deleted from
the Environmental Protection Agency's annual report on air-pollution trends.
That deed was done by Bush appointees at the agency, with White House
approval, possibly because the White House had been angered by a previous
report from the State Department suggesting the dire harm that could come from
climate change. President George W. Bush had dismissed that report as "put out
by the bureaucracy."

And I assume you've read what NASA's Hansen said about the White House
suppression of GW info.