As he outlined the US' new plans for tackling climate change, President Bush made the bold claim that the US' carbon emissions are growing more slowly than those in Europe. This was presented not only as evidence to support the States' non-carbon cap approach to tackling emissions, but as something of a rebuke to the noisy …
...and damned statistics. Maybe Bush isn't the only one telling porkies. All the media and the environmental lobby rattles on about is Carbon Dioxide but rarely do the other five gases rate a mention (exception made for El Reg!).
When will the environment lobby and the Kyoto signatories come clean on the commitments they have made or the monitoring being performed?
Talking about the impact of agriculture and lax forestry management isn't quite as sensational as the motorist and big business.
Climate change, is the data reliable or is it a selection of suitable statistics?
Keep the planet clean but don't lie about the reasons for doing it!
What a dorky story
I am no huge fan of George Bush, but let me get this straight. Instead of taking the credit or blame for when his administration was in power (2000-2004) he should use the numbers from 1990-2004. Since the numbers from 2000-2004 were favorable, that would imply that the numbers from 1990-2000 were unfavorable. Which administration was in power for most of that period? Hmmm.
But I'm sure its all that evil Bush's fault. He and Cheney were probably using enormous amounts power at Haliburton. Furthering their nefarious plans for world domination. Those bastards!!!!
Any way you slice it, the US is the largest emitter and has done the least to mitigate those emissions (China will overtake us, but AFAIK it hasn't yet). Bush's rejection of Kyoto is a notably bad policy in light of this uncontroversial datum, but the US has been a leading emitter for decades, regardless of which major party is in power.
We need leaders who are willing to take action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, so as to reduce *total* emissions--full stop. Quibbling about relative emissions growth rates among industrialized nations is a great way to avoid having that discussion.
The "dorky story" comment is ridiculous. First of all, 1990 is the base year as agreed by the UN. Secondly, the events of September 11th, 2001 caused a massive depression in aviation related emissions - 36,000 to 40,000 flights per day were grounded (for 3 days - it was late September 13th before flying restarted). Thirdly, ONLY CO2 was used in the data.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. This was an example of massaged statistics at it's best, picking a serious outlier in the statistics, only showing it, and trumpeting your success.
I understand that you may have been trying to be humorous in juxtaposing "Whitehouse" in a story on "greenhouse" gases. If so, you failed; it isn't funny, just annoying. The correct usage is White House.
Otherwise, the story was interesting, if sadly not surprising. The Administration has shown a history of picking references to suit conclusions. For the anonymous commenter "Dorky Story," the story said that ANY set of years would show a different answer. I took that to include the sets of 2001-2004, 2002-2004, and 2003-2004. The graph included in the "full analysis" link confirms that nicely. The U.S. had ONE good year, 2000. That year was good enough to make up for the differences in 2001-2004...but the trend is clearly in favor of Europe. It appears that the White House is taking credit for the one year that worked, the FIRST year Bush was in office (when his policies could be expected to have the least effect), and using that to justify Administraion policy for the entire time since then. Clinton was no better on this subject...but that doesn't say much.
This report is complete pants.
Mr. Bush is clearly shown in numerous PR shoots standing next to trees, smiling at them warmly, shaking their hands and kissing their babies.
For me this is conclusive evidence that the Dubbya is hip with environmentality and is as green as apple pie.
George W was not President in 2000
George W Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd President of the United States on 20 January 2001. He was elected in November 2000 but, as always, the new President did not assume office until the following January. So, even if his Administration's claim for success in controlling greenhouse gasses was not undermined by the selective use of statistics, it couldn't include any credit for reductions in emissions in 2000.
However, as said before, few of the many factors which affect the levels of emissions are directly or quickly susceptible to government actions so it would be unreasonable to ascribe emission changes to contemporary government policies, under any Administration.
Re: George W was not President in 2000
"few of the many factors which affect the levels of emissions are directly or quickly susceptible to government actions"
When does this anonymous writer expect George W Bush's emission changes to kick in?
Impossible to believe
Personally I cannot believe a word that that maniac says. Dubya has lied about everything in his life, from his time in the Air Force - studiously staying out of Vietnam and even out of the cockpit he was supposed to be in, to WMDs and so-called ties between Iraq and Al Qeida.
This man is delusional and belongs in an institute under the care of proper medical personnel, not in the position of the leader of the most powerful military force in the world.
Re: Whitehouse / White House
Whichever. To paraphrase Billy Connolloy, it still rhymes with Toilet.
All BS anyway....
Global warming is nothing but BS anyway - simply the treehugger flavor of the decade. 60's it was DDT, 70's it was pollution, 80's was nuclear power, 90's were... damn... Bill Clinton... and I simply didn't pay attention to anything after his being elected the first time... His second election... well, I decided to play Quake full time....
IF the millions of global warming scientists can't get a computer weather model to predict what has ALREADY been recorded during the past 100 years, why the hell would anyone take seriously those same weather models predicting all the wonderful things that they say will happen if we don't cripple our economies? (ok... everyone except China's economy)
Somebody answer me that.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is one of Exxon-Mobile's front think-tanks, using tactics developed by Big Tobacco to promote the confusion of scientific fact. See http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/climate-misinformation.html, or scan the expose (PDF downloadable at http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html) for the string Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The notion that Big Oil provided the White House (or whitehouse if you prefer, I don't care) with its playbook should surprise no one.
As always what George "the weasel" Jr says in public and in all speeches he always does the exact opposite , for my little birdie tells me his "GOP" back room boys have hatched a little plot to double the current US green house gas emissions whilst appearing to be green on the outside!
Oh well , that is a very evil double standard indeed!
One can say this speech is one in which true political double speak and rhetoric rule the roost!
We have no choices in this world of ours , which up to it's eyeballs in this generation of democratically elected leaders who have no vision except to send us all to a future hell !
Score one more for Nostradamus!
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- I KNOW how to SAVE Microsoft. Give Windows 8 away for FREE – analyst
- Special Report How Britain could have invented the iPhone: And how the Quangocracy cocked it up