ABC World News reported Bush greenhouse gas reduction proposal, ignored criticism of it
On the May 31 edition of ABC's World News, host Charles Gibson reported that President Bush "call[ed] on 15 major nations to set a goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and that "[t]his is a major change for the White House." Gibson noted that "the Bush administration was expected to face heavy criticism [at next week's G8 summit] for not doing enough about global warming." However, he failed to mention that Bush's greenhouse gas reduction proposal does not include any specific targets to be met or penalties for failing to reduce emissions -- shortcomings highlighted by numerous lawmakers and environmentalists. By contrast, other media outlets did report on the criticism of Bush's proposal, including the May 31 editions of the CBS Evening News and NBC's Nightly News.
In his May 31 speech on the U.S. international development agenda, Bush presented his proposal to reduce greenhouse gases emissions:
In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week. The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
So my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To help develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.
In addition to this long-term global goal, each country would establish midterm national targets, and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs. Over the course of the next 18 months, our nations would bring together industry leaders from different sectors of our economies, such as power generation and alternative fuels and transportation. These leaders will form working groups that will cooperate on ways to share clean energy technology and best practices.
Gibson called Bush's proposal a "major change," and ABC News correspondent Bill Blakemore later reported that Bush said in his speech that "the U.S. would now take the lead in the fight against global warming." But while Blakemore noted that Bush's speech came only hours after NASA administrator Michael Griffin said, "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it [global warming] is a problem we must wrestle with," neither Gibson nor Blakemore mentioned any specific criticism of Bush's proposal.
Yet other media outlets did. For example:
- On the May 31 edition of the CBS Evening News, chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reported: "[T]he Bush approach calls for voluntary international goals to reduce greenhouse gases, not binding commitments. And that troubles climate change experts." Axelrod's report then quoted Elliot Diringer from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change as saying, "Unless you have all the countries sitting down together and saying, 'Here's what we're prepared to do, what are you prepared to do?' and then working toward an agreement on a package of commitments, you're not going to get the critical mass of action that you need to reduce emission."
- On the May 31 edition of NBC's Nightly News, chief environmental correspondent Anne Thompson reported that "[e]nvironmental leaders I talked to today certainly weren't impressed" with Bush's proposal. Thompson added: "One said it was worse than too little, too late, and several agreed that it was a PR strategy, designed to keep President Bush from looking like an obstructionist at next week's G8 meeting."
- The Washington Post reported on June 1 that
Bush's proposal "came under heavy fire from key members of
Congress" and that "[v]irtually without exception,
environmentalists questioned why Bush has devised a plan that lacks mandatory
cuts in greenhouse gas emissions":
"The president is not offering commitments, and he's not asking for commitments, and without them we won't get the job done," said Elliot Diringer, director of international strategies for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "The administration has done all it can to squelch discussion of future climate commitments. This could keep them off the table until the end of this administration." - In a June 1 article on Bush's proposal, The New York Times reported that "environmental advocates and some European officials" said that "the president delivered no clear statement on what steps the United States would take to limit emissions over the next 10 to 20 years, while he was working on long-term goals for the next 50 years and beyond." The Times noted that the goals Bush laid out "would not be binding unless individual nations chose to bind themselves."
- A June 1 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) reported that "Mr. Bush's announcement doesn't so much represent a revolutionary change in his approach, but an evolution of thought."
- A June 17 Los Angeles Times article reported: "Some of [Bush's] most persistent critics praised him for taking on the issue. But they also expressed skepticism, saying that mandatory limits on emissions were the only way to turn around the growing release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for causing Earth's temperature to rise."
From the May 31 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: Well, President Bush today addressed the issue of global warming. The president is calling on 15 major nations to set a goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is a major change for the White House and comes just days before the president goes to a meeting of major industrialized nations, at which the Bush administration was expected to face heavy criticism for not doing enough about global warming.
The president made his proposal on day when a major debate over global warming erupted at NASA, of all places. The nation's space agency is responsible for producing much of the data we have on global warming, and today its top administrator seemed to play down the problem. And that did not sit well with his researchers on the subject. Here's ABC's Bill Blakemore.
BLAKEMORE: NASA's satellite photos and data have always been at the center of research on global warming. So it was startling today to hear NASA's administrator, Michael Griffin, say this on National Public Radio.
MICHAEL GRIFFIN (NASA administrator): I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.
[...]
BLAKEMORE: Even the president distanced himself from Griffin today, saying the U.S. would now take the lead in the fight against global warming. Bill Blakemore, ABC News, New York.
From the May 31 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
THOMPSON: Good evening, Brian. Environmental leaders I talked to today certainly weren't impressed. One said it was worse than too little, too late, and several agreed that it was a PR strategy designed to keep President Bush from looking like an obstructionist at next week's G8 meeting.
David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council said that the world is full of lots of international meetings and summits; the question is whether you're ready to lead at home. Environmentalists want the president to get behind legislation that would mandates cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that scientists believe contribute to global warming. The United States is the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, and environmentalists believe only after the U.S. makes cuts at home can it pressure countries like China and India to do the same.
From the May 31 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
AXELROD: Still, the Bush approach calls for voluntary international goals to reduce greenhouse gases, not binding commitments. And that troubles climate change experts.
DIRINGER: Unless you have all the countries sitting down together and saying, "Here's what we're prepared to do, what are you prepared to do?" and then working toward an agreement on a package of commitments, you're not going to get the critical mass of action that you need to reduce emission.
Yes, I'm just so sure that voluntary thing is going to work. What's Bush smokin' these days? Maybe if we got all the hot air out of Washington we'd have a chance to save the planet.
Yeah, that compulsory thing will work better.
Got a bridge to sell ya.
let's see, the voluntary thing is.....voluntary. and the compulsory thing is.....compulsory. which guarantees the desired result? are you trying to get rid of that bridge someone sold you? interested in some swampland?
The compulsory thing? Like arrests, prosecutions, handcuffs, jails, re-education camps and the like?
What kind of government engages in wholesale economic controls, which is what these proposed carbon emissions controls are? We have a name for such states: 'fascist'. Anyone who supports compulsory controls of this kind supports the very definition of fascism.
Even more outrageous, there is no proof whatsoever that these measure or anything like them will have any measurable effect on the global climate.
NL:
So, now it's "FASCISM" to protect the public from dangerous practices of businesses? The city awards a landscaping contract to the lowest bidder, who turns out to have workers who run around willy-nilly swinging machetes. People are hacked and killed in the process ... BUT NO ... can't do a thing about it, because attempting to protect the public, or to regulate "A BUSINESS" is ... FASCISM.
You rightwingers are becoming more insane by the day, and more irrelevant as a result. My God, rightwingers have NO SOUL AT ALL.
The "controls" you are supporting are not just going to affect businesses. These economic restrictions will percolate down onto each and every citizen of this country in the form of higher prices, reduced economic growth, fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living.
The second worst thing about this is the new beauracracy that will be created to minitor and enforce compulsory controls. These people will be just as obtuse, ineffecient, corruptable and destructive as any of the other bureaucrats we already have.
The worst apsect of these carbon emission controls is they wiill have no measureable effect on climate change regardless of whether that are voluntary or compulsory. This sacrifice of liberty and prosperity will produce no results. But that is the story with all liberal programs isn't it? They all impose great burdens on society and produce no measurable improvements!
I thought guys named 'Tex' wore cowboy boots, not jackboots.
NL207 wrote:"But that is the story with all liberal programs isn't it? They all impose great burdens on society and produce no measurable improvements!"
This is one of the most insane and self-delusional things I have ever read. Seat belts? Safety regulations? Acid rain regulations? Social Security? Medicare? This is off the top of my head, if I looked things up I could fill up pages and pages!
Toxic Substance Control Act, pesticide regulations, safe drinking water, health standards for restaurants, health standards for food processors, meat packers, and dairy processors.
These are good ones to add to your list. Does the anti-regulation crowd really want to live in a country with no controls over drinking water or food?
To ND5748927, you have it exactly backwards: we could spend months examining the thousands of ways in which government regulation has been a good thing throughout history for both public health and safety, and for the economy (gasp, it's true). However, I challenge you to find even one example where businesses policing themselves has actually worked. Tainted spinach and peanut butter, e-coli in beef, and the whole Enron debacle come to mind from recent years of how it has been a disaterous failure. But please don't let facts infiltrate your philosophies. They tend to be so inconvenient.
The worst apsect of these carbon emission controls is they wiill have no measureable effect on climate change regardless of whether that are voluntary or compulsory.
What's your basis for that conclusion? Do you have a reference?
So we should NEVER impose any controls on business because it will cost us more money. We have to stop telling that corporation on the hill they cant put arsenic in our water. Oh sure a few kids may DIE from the poisoned water but hey we cant make that business charge more for their goods. By your logic we could NEVER impose ANY restrictions on ANY business. I guess telling them they cant send workers into that mine to SEE whether or not its safe is fascists much better they kill their workers off one a day than actually impose (shudder) restrictions on them. It always makes me queasy when I run across someone for whom money is more important than people.
You of course KNOW that the people who are in the regulatory agency will be obtuse and corrupt. You apparantly know this by your great prognostication skills. Shouldnt you be at the racetrack if you can infallably tell the future? Then again you CANT tell the future and that was worthless hyperbole. An argument without the slightest validity. By its logic government program could possibly EVER help people or ever HAVE helped people. Take a second and review rural electrification.
You trying to unload the one Bush has already sold YOU? How brainwashed do you have to be to think industry is going to voluntarily lessen their profit ratio? The amount of koolaid you had drunk they could sell you the green cheese franchise on the moon.
I wrote this over on the Fred Thompson/red truck thread but it's worth repeating here:
There once was a poster, lemoc
His lines he ticks off like a clock
He adds naught to discussion
'Cause he's had a concussion
Or his brain's being held back in hock
Good one, JJ.
Now now he's high on the real thing, powerful gasoline, a clean windshield, and shoe shine. On board his flagship "The Enola McClueless" haveing a delightful conversation with his copilot. I can here him saying now "Get thee Behind Me!!" And the big red needle is pointing to "E".
Hahaha!!
How is it that Bush can anger both sides of every issue. (Immigration, Harriot Myers, spending, and now this.)
I thought politicians were supposed to smile and make everyone happy, or at the very least their base.
Even a Conservative Website Blasts him today.
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com
I can't resist going to that website, LDoren, and you know it!
"Right when the world is waking up to the fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a swindle, George Bush decides to change teams and join the side of insanity"
Blast indeed.I'd hate to see the lathering he gets from that website if he ever figures out that the invasion of Iraq is a scam.
that "conservative website" you just happen to bring up in every other post.
Mefirst, have you checked it out? Worth a look for a laugh.I mean it's basically the same as some of the worst posts on MMFA, typos and all, but it's funny to see it presented as "commentary", rather than off-the-cuff righty ranting.
i did read it a couple times. he probably put it together and is ashamed to admit it.
There was good commentary on this topic on the "Washington Week" show on PBS.
Bush will be confronted with several leaders at the G-8 meeting this upcoming week who all support mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.
He can derail the talk of how he is uncooperative by preempting their demands to make the commitment this year by agreeing to talk next year.
See, Rove wants as many Republicans as possible to win in 2008, and so they have to do some great things next year. Agreeing to reasonable limits this year won't help much next year. Bush agreeing to reasonable limits next year will help Republicans.
Hmmmmm. I guess you folks are assuming that it is a proven fact that the efforts of humans in limiting (primarily) CO2 emissions can affect the global warming trend (which has been in effect since the warming has been confirmed). Note that most climatologists either doubt this hypothesis or disagree with it.
The facts are that something on the order of 1% of the green house effect (the back scattering of infra red radiation) is due to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Over 90% of the green house gas effect is due to atmospheric water vapor.
The effects of the solar cycle far exceed the effects of CO2 in establishing the surface temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and the seas. In addition, the earth is known to have gone through cycles of global warming and global cooling with temperature extremes in the peaks well in excess of that which is current.
So, one (at least those who are skeptical of the man-made global warming hypothesis) wonders why the politicians are so in love with the “theory”. One hypothesis on this is that it is another way for politicians (liberal, of course) to exercise control. In the case of Bush, I daresay his nod to man-made global warming may be just part of his continued and thoroughly misguided effort to be “bi-partisan”.
different name, same stale talking points.
same name, same habit of bringing nothing to the debate.
at least i keep the same name. too bad many of you trolls don't have the stones to do the same.
First point: OldMarine is largely correct.
1. The Sun is responsible for about 85% of the mean near surface global temperature of this planet, of 255 degrees K. This is computed approximately by modeling the earth as a blackbody radiator. An explanation of how this works. Do the math yourself or look here.
2. The greenhouse effect accounts for another 33 degrees K of warmth. The mean near surface temperature of the earth is 288 K. See the link above.
3. 95% of the Greenhouse effect within the troposphere is caused by water vapor. That's right! H2O, which almost completely independent of human activity.
So why are you surprised?
Except that doesnt matter. The point isnt how much of this or how much of that. If 99% of your drink is Martini and I put in 1% of cyanide it will still kill you. If there is a balance between 2000 lbs of iron on one side and 2000 lbs of coal on another you only have to put a few lbs on either side to upset that balance. This is what we are talking about a balance. We are upsetting that balance.
Invalid analogy. There is nothing biologocally harmful about CO2 in the range 200 -1200 ppm. The current value is about 375 ppm. Below 180 ppm, plant life is impaired by starving photosynthesis.
The facts remain that in the global warming room, King Kong is the room ( the sun), a 950 pound gorilla named water vapor is present and the next biggest ape in the room only weighs 50 pounds.
You are telling us that we should be afraid of the monkey because he might gain 20 pounds. This is absurd.
The 950 lb gorilla is sitting on a table that supports 965 lbs. Underneath the table sits poor ole NL207. Chessguy has a 30 lb container of ice cream and is spoon feeding it to the gorilla.
You have too much BUTT in your rebuttal and no fact, no references, suggestive of the presence of an ass. Ignorant opinions are just that, ignorance.
The facts are as I presented them. The people who mean to frighten you about human caused global warming are not telling you the whole story. Most of them do not even openly discuss the role of water vapor in this system I think for two reasons: that role is not well understood by science and to do so is to expose the flimsiness of the CO2 scare model.
It is just plain foolish to make fascist political decisions based on insecure scientific theories, which is what the entire climate theory is right now: unproven by experimental test.
I guess you're just too dense to understand satire/nuance/analogy. Go ready EVERYTHING here then come back when you fully understand it. With the intelligence you're displaying, that should be never, thank God!
That Bush has aquiesced to this idiocy is very serious. This is as serious a threat to economic freedom in this country as was the Kelo decision by SCOTUS, effectively allowing local governments to sieze private property on behalf of private individuals for private purposes.
Those who make light of this are engaged in a perverse form of gallows humor. Was it your initention to engage in gallows humor or are you just ignorant of the threat this nonsense poese?
Oh gee, I'm painfully aware the danger that ignorance poses. I also wasn't aware siezing private property for commercial gain was a family value until this administration. Some more information for you et. al:
"The relative amount of forcing attributed to the sun is less than 10% whereas that attributed to CO2 alone is 30-40%, for all GHG it is more than 60% and the total amount of forcing for all anthropogenic sources is about 80%. See here: [link to data.giss.nasa.gov] and here: [link to pubs.giss.nasa.gov] These numbers come from data between 1750 - 2000 and are used in global climate models to accurately reproduce the last two millenia of global temperature variations (Mann, et al., Eos, 84, 256-258, 2003)."
"...the fact that CO2 only accounts for 1% of the total amount of greenhouse gases in the troposhere is yet another misunderstood fact. The other 99% is water vapor which is always in the atmosphere and varies as a function of temperature (i.e. it is a feedback and not a forcing). The data thoroughly support the fact that CO2 and GHG other than water vapor are responsible for 50% of the current warming trend. The fact is that the amount of water vapor will increase as temperatures rise providing a positive feedback resulting in even more warming."
"There was a warming of about 0.3C between 1900-1940, but then a slight cooling trend of about 0.1C from 1940-1970 (due to the cooling effect of accumulating aerosols in the atmosphere countering the heating effect of increased GHG). Following this, about a 0.6C warming to the current global average temp."
You do realize your links point to the organization headed by Dr. James E. Hansen, a man who has made his fortune and his reputation as a global warming alarmist, do you not? Do you seriously expect these people to present an unvarnished view?
There are very serious questions surrounding most of their theories. This is why they are still theory. They remain unproven by experimental test. All of their "validation" comes from models and the few experiments that can be conducted on a manageable scale to investigate particular phenomena. There is not yet one climate model that correctly regresses all existing time intervals for which there are climate data, including the model your reference has without "special assumptions".
"Well, what about some 20 greenhouse climate models, all predicting warming — all the way to 11.5 C from as low as 1.4 C, for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide? Yet no one can tell us which of these models is correct — if any. And none of these models can explain why the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975 — without special assumptions. In any case, model results are never evidence. Only actual observations count."
I have the source code for NASA's modelE1. Would you like to see it?
There are other views of the warming over the last 3+ centuries. Some of these scientists think there are other contributory mechanisms: Svensmark, Veizer, Lean, Patterson, and Shaviv among them. In aggregate, these scientists argue that CO2 may have contributed less than half of the warming observed in the last century. If this is true, then government intervention of a scale not seen in modern hiostory is not going to change anything except your freedom.
You cite Mann, MBH98. Did you know these results have been (a) impeached for statistical methodological errors by Dr. Edward Wegman and (b) they have been dropped as proofs in the IPCC 2007 assesment? [same reference as the model critique]
You should stick to playing chess.
James Hanson is NASA's top climate scientist. You ad hominem attack on him isnt worth beans just because your side of the issue doesnt like him doesnt make him wrong, or an alarmist. The rest of your post made a very good point. Wegmann is solid and makes a good point. If the statistics arent being handled right that would make me take a second look at the results.
It is NOT an invalid analogy and you still avoided the point of it. Its about the balance. Its about the balance. Once the balance is disturbed it becomes a self reinforcing dynamic. One thing doesnt have to be the biggest factor if it adds to one side of a natural process only enough of a factor to upset that balance. In your scenario if the 950 lb King Kong is in a tug of war with the villiage that has been going on for centuries and was a virtual stalemate it could take only a 50 lb monkey to be the ADDED difference that allows KK to win the tug of war and pull the village into the mud it isnt ridiculous you just didnt understand it
Prove it. And try tofind a reoutable source. Not the usual basless drivel you get your info from the the Jewish terrorist attacks. You're an idiot
Just how ignorant of history are you anyway you moron? You never heard about the King David Hotel bombing? The Deir Yassin massacre? It isnt my fault you are so ignorant. You are so stupid you call me a Jew hater though I am married to a Jew. Your ignorance is bad enough being proud of being so ignorant is actually kind of sad. Find a six year old to read a history of the period to you. Have the kid read to you about Irgun Zvai Luemi and the King David Hotel bombing
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9042762/Irgun-Zvai-Leumi
On July 22, 1946, the Irgun blew up a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 soldiers and civilians (British, Arab, and Jewish). Have him read to you about the Stern Group, the assasination of Lord Moyne, the Cairo-Haifa train bombings, The Deir Yassin massacre and the assasination of UN negotiator Folke Bernadotte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)
I didnt make these things up. Neither did the site I got them from. It isnt our fault you are too ignorant to know about them.
NL207 posted:
"1. The Sun is responsible for about 85% of the mean near surface global temperature of this planet, of 255 degrees K. This is computed approximately by modeling the earth as a blackbody radiator. An explanation of how this works. Do the math yourself or look here."Let's see, the sun is the driving energy producer in our solar system. I wonder why it is the main factor in the temperature on the planets close to it. Also, the model, as he says, is a blackbody radiator. If the earth was a black marble in space, these calculations would be accurate. Since we have an dynamic atmosphere, climatology comes into play.
"3. 95% of the Greenhouse effect within the troposphere is caused by water vapor. That's right! H2O, which almost completely independent of human activity."It also helps to selectively quote your sources. A more accurate quote would be this:"Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor."
"..the politicians are so in love with the “theory”. One hypothesis on this is that it is another way for politicians (liberal, of course) to exercise control. - oldmarine
I've heard this vague "control " theory on talk radio, and it comes off as another plot without a motive.Maybe I'm missing it, Oldmarine, but how do you think this control would manifest itself, and who would it benefit?
In the case of Bush, I daresay his nod to man-made global warming may be just part of his continued and thoroughly misguided effort to be “bi-partisan”.- oldmarine
Again, my BS detector always readlines when I don't see the incentive for behavior.What would you define as Bush's most obvious attempts to be bi-partisan, and what political motive is behind his stance on Climate Change (assuming you don't mean that he's just being bi-partisan to be friendly)?
This same post, almost word for word was indeed posted here a few months back. Maybe oldmarine or another alias just comes on here to cut and paste every so often.
Yeah, I thought it looked like a copy & paster, that's why I like to ask a few follow-up questions. It's like asking somebody sitting at a player piano to freestyle jam a little bit.
Quitcherbitchin' and stop drivin' your cars.
Quit being a moron and stop pretending you have a brain
Solon, please spot Lemoc 50 cents to get his brain out of hock.
Maybe if he could demonstrate the model is worth that much money
And if GWB had set a hard and fast world wide percentage (say 5% in the next 5 years), there are those that would be all over him for not involving other countries in his decision. Lets wait to see what comes out of the G8 before getting all wound up (and indirectly contributing to global warming through increased rage, higher blood pressures, etc)
let's wait. let's study. let's wait. let's study. that's all we've been doing for 15 years.
Study it for another 50 years. 42 of the last 67 years we had global cooling.
This is the biggest scam in history.
no, the biggest scam is that the science is "undecided". but i'm sure you get your science lessons from professor limbaugh.
Naw, the biggest scam is "the debate is over", since it's barely started.
Thinking we can manipulate the climate by the actions recommended by your AGW evangelists is just...well, selling snake oil.
Another sucker born every minute.
so once again, you are making the claim that all the pollution being poured into the atmosphere has absolutely no effect.
Nothing wrong with reducing polution. What could be wrong with that?
But the verdict is not in on what's causing global warming.
Lets see more than 900 peer reviewed studies saying man IS contributing to Global Warming and ZERO peer reviewed studies claiming otherwise. If the verdict isnt in I would say the jury is warming up to give it.
Yet zero, I repeat zero of those peer reviewed studies has made an accurate verifiable prediction of global warming that has come true.
That is why it is a scam. They left the last leg out of the whole discussion -- verifying a hypothesis.
Climatologists are historically pathetic predictors and they earned that reputation with fantasies such as man-made global warming.
more extreme droughts? like the unprecented one in australia now.
unprecedented
And that's evidence of...an unprecedented drought. Nothing more.
I'm guessing you see evolution as an unproven theory to.
Nope. Apples and oranges. Are there credible scientists out there that believe the warming may be cyclical?
The answer is yes. I'm not saying we're not affecting the earth's temp. But I'm not ready to say it's for sure that we are. We know the earth is warming to say it's a fact that man is causing it is false.
It's comparing apples to oranges, but you know why I asked the question but I'll explain it anyway. I find that people who rail against the evidence for global climate change are the same people who also deny evolution. Why? Because they have a pre-defined answer already handed to them by their propogandists and have to fix the facts to match that answer. They have disdain for how science works and only want the evidence to fit what they already believe to be true. So, do you believe that evolution is still an unproven theory?
Apparantly your astonishing ignorance extends to not understanding what the scientific method IS. If you have a hypothesis the next step is to make predictions based on it. IF those predictions come true it adds weight to your hypothesis so the fact these droughts were PREDICTED and came TRUE is more evidence the theory is correct.
and australia was one of the areas predicted to have less rain because of global warming. and florida and the southwest u.s. are also having extremely severe droughts. the backup for south florida drinking water, lake okeechobee, hit an alltime low this month. i know your answer. there have always been droughts. but australia has never not had enough water to supply agriculture. that may happen this summer.
LH, My sister has a PhD from Harvard and she disagrees with you. I'll think I'll take her word for it instead of yours. She is a scientist, btw.
A PHD in what? Are there other credible PHD's in the scientific community who disagree?
The answer is yes. Why is that?
Yes, there are 2 PhD's who disagree with her and 100s who agree. Gee, I wonder who's right.
Have they done peer reviewed articles to back up their claims? Gee the answer is NO
You are of course WRONG just like you usually are. Not only has the more severe drought prediction come true as Mefirst points out but also more severe hurricanes prediction has come true. Between 1850 and 1985 there were three force five hurricanes reported in the Atlantic and since 1985 there have been at least 8. You really cant get past the fact that YOUR side CANT seem to come up with any peer reviewed science to back up THEIR claims
Maybe that's because science still does not know how the climate system works? Evidence abounds that this is true. The theory of anthrpogenic global warming is just that, a theory. It has no more validity that the theory that the Milankovitch Cycle causes ice ages. Both have proponents in the scientific community but neither has passed the validation of experimental test.