W coming around?

Yes, but will he fund the programs?

 

It will be interesting to see how this statement (assuming that it actually happens) is interpreted by those who have written climate change off as a conspiracy. I wonder what impact it will have on the "average joe" who doesn't really know much about the issue and certainly won't follow whether funding follows the "talk". My guess is very little, sadly, since the EIA expects US consumption to grow by 2% in 2007 despite the infamous "addicted to oil" speech.

 

The political process has become so perverted, and the breach of trust between the people and the government so vast, that I find myself questioning the motives behind a statement which, at face value, should not evoke skepticism.

I think this is what pains me most of all.

 

Bush's position has always been that the solution should be market/technology driven, not regulation driven. Therefore, Bush has always been in favor of incentives, tax breaks, etc. as a way of leading industry toward reduced emissions. He has always opposed arbitrary targets or caps that do not address how the targets will be achieved, particularly when the arbritrary targets exempt many nations.

If anything is annouced, I predict it will be the incentives/market forces type of approach.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 18 2006, 09:13 PM) [snapback]321463[/snapback]</div>

Ditto

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 18 2006, 09:13 PM) [snapback]321463[/snapback]</div>

One positive sign was appointing Hank Paulson to the Sec. of Treasurer position. Hank is definitely pro-environment and does talk to the President. (The crazy thing is, apparently some environmental groups criticized Paulson for telling the Chinese they need to take care of their resources if they want to be a major power. They need to understand the context here.) Bush also got rid of the guy who was accused of doctoring the environmental reports commissioned by the White House. I don't know if it was for that reason however.

But you're completely correct. Until funding follows the talk, it's only talk, and probably talk for political purposes - so that the Democrats won't seem green by default.

 

If true, it would be a shocking reversal. I'll believe it when I see/hear it and see reforms enacted in policy, not just in sound bites.

What we need is the energy equivalent of Kennedy's Apollo moon challenge of 1961. Big difference is that we weren't faced with (a) corrupt corporate empire(s) trying to keep us from going to the moon.

Speaking of the moon, that might be a good alternative to the Ranch in Texas....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ Sep 19 2006, 03:19 PM) [snapback]321864[/snapback]</div>

har har. Actually, if you think about it there's a lot of "positive" corporate greed here that counter balances the corrupt corporate empire. There's a tremendous amount of money to be made by those that develope disruptive technologies. The amount of money expended on all the different forms of energy is staggering.

 

Of course many of us are not so sure. I'd rank "Global Warming" right up there with other PC nonsense. Working as a scientist I can tell you that it is common knowledge that the computer models being used are very flawed. Talking about it is a huge problem if you want to get a grant however. Warming maybe occurring but the rate and cause are far from certain at this time. The media have to sell something and disaster sells far better then good news. Keep things in perspective.

http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6894

 

So, what kind of scientist are you?

http://www.realclimate.org/

 

Eh, this is standard politics. Remember folks, elections are coming up in November. Shrub is just paying lip service to the subject to bring moderate voters temporarily into the fold. Come December you won't hear another peep about it.

Other standard election ploys: media clampdown on Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rove, subsiding prices at the pump, conciliatory wording on Iraq. The calculated furor on gay marriage worked last time - expect one more tidbit in the coming weeks for the evangelicals.

 

No, I guess he is not a scientist, he is just this:

William Gray is an Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity. Professor Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He joined Colorado State University in 1961. He has been advisor of over 70 Ph. D. and M. Sc. students. His team has been issuing seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984.

You're right, probably has no more of a grasp on climatic change than the new kid (uh, I mean meteorologist) on your local "channel 10 action weather" news channel.

So what? I don't follow the sheep and neither does William Gray. Believe it or not, scientists long ago believe the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe. For a time, only a small minority believed otherwise.

Try to get a research grant to prove Global Warming caused by humans is a fallacy or is caused by humans. Hmm, I wonder who gets the money???

Rick
#4 Prius
"What ever happened to that pesky ozone hole???"

 

One must beg the question... if the models are not accurate, then what if they underestimate the impact of GW?

Actually, everything I've read seems to indicate the models have been accurate.