[at-l] Knowing that it's there.. and atml

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Robert wrote:
>Reading this just made me cry. The idea that people still think Bush is 
>doing a good job (in anything) amazes me.

Oh, Robert - I thought better of you than this.

>Jim wrote, "In point of fact, in 2003 the environmental organizations 
>basically got a
>30% raise from the Feds - courtesy of Bush & Co. Didn't get Bush any praise
>or gratitude though - just more vitriol."
>
>This is what Dubya was doing by his 30% bribe... I mean raise.

Don't be silly - regardless of what he's done or not done that you like or 
don't like, any idea that that 30% is a "bribe" is just too silly for words. 
  We're talking Bush here - you know the guy the Democrats have 
misunderestimated in at least 4 elections - the guy who continually eats 
their lunch politically.   Do you really think he's really stupid enough to 
consider that 30% a bribe - and expect anything reasonable to come from it?  
He's smarter than that - and you should be smarter than to think in terms of 
"bribe."

Think about it - if he did what he did for the reasons you attribute to him 
- why would he give more money to those who turned around and used it to 
attack him?   Not everything Bush does re: the environment is "evil" - not 
everything the environmental groups do re: the environment is "good."


>Taken from www.nrdc.org:
>
>***White House skepticism about global warming reportedly kept the 
>Environmental Protection Agency from funding Weather Channel videos on the 
>issue. The EPA's now-defunct Office of Atmospheric Programs, Science 
>Communications, Outreach and Communications signed a contract in August 
>2002 to have the Weather Channel -- which has 80 million viewers -- produce 
>and air five, two-minute videos outlining the dangers posed by climate 
>change, including summer heat waves, droughts, forest fires and glacier 
>melt. (One of the planned videos, for example, was to address the question: 
>"Is human activity to blame, or is it part of a natural cycle?") However, 
>EPA staff later altered the agreement, replacing the global warming videos 
>with topics on ozone layer depletion and skin cancer.***
>

Maybe there's a reason?  To address just one of the points there - glacier 
melt is due to SOOT.  That's according to Jim Hansen & Co in a NASA report 
that was released last year.  It's also corroborated by personal experience 
in the Canadian Rockies and direct observation of the albedo change of the 
Canadian Glaciers.  So - on at least one point, those videos would have been 
a lie.  We can talk about the others if you insist.

In fact - even Jim Hansen admits that AT LEAST 25% of global climate change 
is due to Solar effects (changes in the Sun's energy output).  And yeah - 
I've got that study floating around here  someplace, too.

BTW - Jim Hansen is the NASA scientist who keeps on pushing the global 
warming disaster scenarios.  I know a lot of those who work for him - and 
mostly they don't agree with him.

>How strange that this was a major point of the Dubya administration that 
>the EPA would have been basically saying was wrong. Fast-forward to G8 
>where Dubya finally admitted that humans actually do affect global warming. 
>And thankfully they ignored him when he told the other 7 that their silly 
>mandatory pollution limits would "wreck" the economies of their respective 
>countries. They all plan to continue their efforts to curtail emissions.
>

Uh - not really.  In case you hadn't heard - and you wouldn't if you listen 
to people like NRDC - Kyoto is dead.  In the time since it was ratified and 
went into effect, US CO2 emissions have dropped some 5% while the French and 
German emissions have increased by 3.6%.  Just a flashback for you - the 
ONLY purpose to the Kyoto treaty was to transfer billiions of dollars in 
cash from the industrialized nations to Third World nation dictators and 
drag down the economies of the developed nations.  It would have produced a 
real reduction is whatever life style you live.  Maybe you'd like to compare 
our economy to what's happening in Europe?  Are you gonna blame a booming 
economy of Bush, too?

Scientifically, the effect of Kyoto on global emissions was a wash - at 
best. It's effect on global CO2 is negligible and it's economic effects are 
horrendous for the developed nations.   And then, at the recent conference 
in Argentina - a dozen or so countries announced that when the treaty 
expires in 2010, they will refuse to renew.

Finally - have you even heard about the agreement Bush & Co made with China, 
India, Japan, S. Korea and Australia to voluntarily reduce CO2 emissions by 
using advanced technology?  Let's examine that one - those countries 
represent 48% of the world's industrial CO2 emissions - and China and India 
were exempt  under Kyoto.  Which is one of the many things that made Kyoto a 
joke.  In other words, whether Bush's agreement works or not, it's still a 
better deal for the US - and everyone else - than Kyoto.

Tell me - have you ever actually READ the Kyoto protocols?  You should try 
it - it's a real education  in envy, malice and avarice.

>Lets see what else Dubya did during 2003.
>

ROTFLMAO!!!

Someone posted a related list on at-l last year.  When I fact-checked a 
random sample, I found that over 85% were flat out lies, misinformation, and 
distortions. The other 15% was neither provable nor disprovable - meaning 
they were someone's unsupported and insupportable opinion.  I notice that 
you very carefully editted your list apparently to include only those items 
that show Bush & Co in the worst possible light.  Meaning - you're missing 
more than half the NRDC list.  Somehow I don't consider that to be 
"objective"" reporting.

In fact to take just one of the items you DID include -
Bush snowmobile decision defies logic, not to mention scientific findings 
(01/30/03)

I did considerable research on that particular subject several years ago - 
and the NRDC article is a direct reversal of what the scientific studies 
actually showed.  The air qualilty was terrible AT THE PARK GATE.  And 
nowhere else in the Park.  There was NO evidence of pollution or damage 
anyplace in the Park and a study by a Park biologist found no evidence of 
negative effects on wildlife (much to her chagrin). The Environmental Impact 
Study applied only at the Park gate in the town of West Yellowstone.

In fact, I've been in Yellowstone more than once - and the major damage I 
saw there (outside of old fires) was due to hikers.

In other words - the NRDC article is a complete fabrication.

>One last thing.
>
>"It's almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in 
>Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection. I find 
>this deeply disturbing."
>                                          --Russel E. Train
>Train headed the EPA from September 1973 to January 1977 -- part of the 
>Nixon and Ford administrations. In 1988, Train was co-chairman of 
>Conservationists for Bush, an organization that backed the candidacy of 
>George W. Bush's father. During the 2004 campaign Train said Bush's record 
>on the environment was so dismal that he would cast his vote for Democrat 
>John Kerry.
>

Everyone's got their opinion.  Doesn't mean they're right or that they know 
what they're talking about.

>Upping spending by 30% and doing more damage by 300%(my personal LOW 
>estimate) would definitely deserve accolades in my book. Thank you Dubya. 
>Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. (Please remove the word "thank" and insert 
>the appropriate expletive)

Your personal estimate seems to be based on "facts" that mostly don't check 
out.

Now - all that being said - I have my own personal beefs with Bush.  And if 
the Democrats had come up with anyone reasonable for the last election, I 
might well have voted for him or her.  But they didn't even come close.

Damn - and I thought you had more common sense than to swallow political 
rhetoric without fact-checking it.

Jim

http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/