How much of a role do you think the Bush Administration has played in American global warming denial?

It was basic party strategy for some time, with Bush as the key player:

"A recently leaked memo written by Frank Luntz, the US Republican and corporate strategist, warned that 'The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable... Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need... to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.'"

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9...

Unfortunately my friend, we humans in the west have become accustomed to our cars and the fuel that runs them, our air conditioners, our plastic toys, mobile phones, computers, fossil fuels for our energy and our wealth. etc. Personal comfort comes first these days - don't worry about the comfort of our diminishing wildlife and fish stocks - of course we all continue to think on a daily basis that all is ok and the world is so big that we couldn't possibly cause the changes that are predicted. We trust scientists with our lives when we get sick or have an accident. Scientists were key in inventing all of the things that we have to keep us comfortable in our own little world. Yet now when scientists tell us that we have a major problem on our hands - no one wants to listen to them because it may mean that we have to give up some of our comforts or pay extra for carbon credits or similar. We will no doubt be giving up comforts and no doubt paying extra for fuel and energy - once the effects of us trashing the Planet start to hit (as it has already in many countries) then the costs will really start to rise - in ways we probably can't even imagine. I think debate is healthy and it is right to question what is put before us, but now I think it is too late and there is too much evidence to keep denying we have a problem. The sceptics are threatening the future of my children - It is an urgent matter - so I wish they would all just piss off.

None, Bush just doesn't want to wreck the American economy and society trying out half baked solutions suggested by environmentalist alarmists that will have no real effect on the temperature. Alarmists and greenies throw out all sorts of ideas that only really end up being a tax or driving prices up and don't really do anything to help reduce the temperature. Why should we waste our money on crap like that or be forced to live at a lower standard of living.

We could help out people around the world in much better ways for much cheaper by providing vaccinations, or fresh drinking water.... all of which would actually accomplish something and not cost anything what the crackpot global warming solutions would cost.

Clinton/Gore did the same to conceal doubts about AGW.

3 June 2008: A NOTE ON NASA'S JAMES HANSEN BEING MUZZLED BY NASA

I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media interviews he was involved in over the years.

Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose.

But I didn't complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen's boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn't do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville. There were no hard feelings, and I'm still active in a NASA satellite mission and fully supportive of its Earth observation programs.

In stark contrast, Jim Hansen said whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to the press and congress during that time. He even campaigned for John Kerry, and received a $250,000 award from Theresa Heinz-Kerry's charitable foundation -- two events he maintains are unrelated. If I had done anything like this when I worked at NASA, I would have been crucified under the Hatch Act.

Does anyone besides me see a double standard here?

-Roy W. Spencer

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

In a free scientific debate, I do not understand the word denial. Theories are proposed and debated. By definition a theory can be proven wrong or partially verified, but actually never proven (i.e., Newton’s Theory of Gravity hung around for hundreds of years till proven wrong). Denial, to me has no meaning in this context.

While I think the debate is definitely healthy and should be encouraged, I believe it is unwise to make any scientific investigation / debate a political issue. To me, to do so is to remove rational thought from the debate and give it over to oratory and manipulation.

I do believe that both sides of the Global Warming issue need to back off of involving politics.

The Bush administration issued a report last week endorsing the findings of the IPCC. Those who continue to define Global Warming as an Al Gore issue are ignorant.

Bush Administration:

"Several lines of evidence, including those outlined in the following sections, point to a strong human influence on climate. Although these individual lines of

evidence vary in their degrees of certainty, when considered together they provide a compelling and scientifically sound explanation of the changes to Earth’s climate"

The administration may have been slow, but the overwhelming body of evidence has finally proved itself to the President, who now talks of technology and market forces to solve the problem rather than Kyoto. The debate is now only around the solution.

None, most skeptics I know are skeptics of politics in general and what the Administration thinks about global warming is of no consequence.

One of your statements is a little confusing, If Hansen has been openly critical of the administration, how was he being censored?

At the last summit meeting over 200 nations booed and jeered at the american delegation when they made an appearance. So much so for the american participation.

You get your facts from the Times?? Talk about special interest funded. Uhmm, believe it or not, George Bush is more eco friendly than Al Gore:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Cultu...

In addition, man made global warming is a scam and you're living a lie if you believe in it. There is an entire industry based around this latest climate scare (there is one every 30 years or so, either warming or cooling). The global warming religion likes to use the National Academy of Science report as their bible, but this is bias and funded by special interest groups. Look carefully at the facts. For example, it states that temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees since the beginning of the 20th century. This is true. However, temps have NOT increased in the last 10 years. You'll notice that, in the 2008 report, none of the graphs contain data past 2000... sketchy, huh? It's because this defies the rising temp theory.

Even though the polar bears have now been put on the endangered species list, it is because environmentalists petitioned to change the rules. The population has actually tripled in the last 30 years. It's the reason that the governor of Alaska is now suing the federal government.

Furthermore, the ice shelfs are the among the highest seen in 30 years. Carbon dioxide is actually a good thing. KYOTO will ruin our economy while letting the rest of the world (who we all know is SO environmentally friendly) gains more power. The list goes on and on for evidence to the contrary of man made global warming, but there is no irrefutable evidence that it does exist.

No matter what environmentalists say (or how they say it), there is no evidence that man is causing global warming. They will use sleight of hand to try and get you, but don't be a sucker. For example, notice how NO commercials say anything about "global warming" anymore? The use the words "climate change" now. That's because environmentalists realize that time is becoming limited on this scare, but they can use the words "climate change" and keep us afraid that we're going to die, whether it be from warming, cooling, etc.

A link that'll get you started on your education (not funded by any special interest groups): http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406

For your own good, the good of the nation, and yes, the planet, you should be VERY skeptical. Look carefully at the facts and the language. Environmentalists are not always keeping the green of nature in mind. There is a lot of money to be made in this hugely expanding industry.

Even if you are someone who will never believe that global warming doesn't exist, think about this... it will cost 29 trillion dollars to fight this threat of sketchy (and special interest funded) "science" along with ruin our economy. Know how much it will take to feed the entire human population for the next 100 yrs? 7 trillion.

Still think we should be making public policies and spend all that money? Then do one thing for me before you call your local congressman: Name one thing that the government hasn't screwed up.

Oh, and feel free to collect the half a million dollar reward with your "proof":

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

I often wonder what Bush's problem is. Oh, yeah. He's a spoiled, selfish brat with no experience or enough common sense to lead anything.

I wonder if Jello will snap someday, become an avid AGW believer and hunt Bush down. That would be amusing.