Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (529790)	1/26/2004 4:27:29 PM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Highlights of the Bush Administration's Abuse of Climate Science The vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real. In June 2001, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review requested by the president concluded that: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rise are expected to continue through the 21st century." Despite these strong words, the Bush administration has consistently and systematically ignored or undercut sound science that runs counter to its political agenda or conflicts with the interests of its allies in the auto, oil, and coal industries. In June 2003, the EPA issued a draft Report on the Environment that failed to address the science and likely impact of climate change. An internal EPA memo revealed that the White House insisted on major edits to the original EPA analysis of climate change, deleting sections addressing the impact of climate change on human health and the environment, discarding a discussion of the conclusions of a National Research Council report on the science in favor of a "recent, limited analysis [that] supports the Administration's favored message," and inserting "uncertainty…where there is essentially none." Rather than put out such a scientifically flawed product, the EPA decided to delete the entire section from its draft report. ucsusa.org Del