Bush Fiddles While the World Burns

Last Saturday, the United Nations released its intensive report on climate change. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon described global warming as "the defining challenge of our age."

Not "of the decade" or even "our life." And not any mere challenge of our age -- but the one that defines us.

"Today the world's scientists have spoken," he stated, "clearly and in one voice."

Not some scientists. Not leading scientists. But the "world's scientists." United.

When the Bush administration was asked in response how much global warming it considered acceptable, the president's chairman of environmental quality, James Connaughton, responded, "We don't have a view on that."

Mind you, it's not like global warming has crept up on anyone. It's been in all the papers. You can't have missed it. Headlines, articles, reports, Oscar-winning documentaries, Nobel Prizes. Cartoons.

But the Bush administration says, "We don't have a view on that."

Rajendra Pachauri, who headed the U.N. panel, has a view. "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late," the scientist told The New York Times. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future."

"The sense of urgency when you put these pieces together is new and striking," insisted climate expert Martin Parry, co-chair of the panel.

The Bush administration? "We don't have a view on that."

No view. And the alarms, red flags and world experts come blaring, flying, resounding everywhere, like avalanches.

"It's extremely clear and is very explicit that the cost of inaction will be huge compared to the cost of action," urged Jeffrey D. Sachs, head of Columbia's Earth Institute.

Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton climate scientist on the panel, reported, "Many of my colleagues would consider that kind of [Greenland ice sheet] melt a catastrophe."

The Bush Administration says, "We don't have a view on that."

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change that put this report together was awarded the Nobel Prize in October. It's been studying the problem for five years. They've now released four reports on the subject. This latest is the most blunt.

But the Bush administration says, "We don't have a view on that."

Stop any bus and wake up some sleeping wino in the back, and he would have a view on that. How can the George Bush administration possibly not have a view on it?? It's the potential fate of the world.

If you were watching a James Bond movie, and 007 reported that Ernst Blofeld had a giant laser on the moon to blow up the world unless it paid him 10 billion dollars, and then M replied, "I don't have a view on that," there'd be a stampede rushing to the box office to get their money back.

But this is freaking real life.

To be fair, Mr. Connaughton of the president's environmental council did say that "the issue warrants urgent action." It's just that the Bush administration didn't "have a view" on what that urgent action should actually be." Which sort of defeats the point of urgent action.

But perhaps best of all is that the panel's U.S. delegation admits trying to make changes to the report -- and then explains it away as only a Bush official can. The group's leader, Dr. Sharon Hays, told the Times that the effort wasn't political, but merely "to make sure the final report matches the science."

Scout's honor. But then, why would anyone think otherwise?

Oh, sure, in 2002 and 2003, White House official Philip A. Cooney -- a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute (shocking, yes, I know) -- with zero science background did edit government climate reports.

And oh, sure, over 120 scientists from seven federal agencies charged in January, 2007, that Bush officials have pressured them "to remove references to 'climate change' and 'global warming' from an expanse of documents, including communications with Congress.

And okay, yes, the head of NASA's institute studying climate, James Hansen, reported in 2006 that the Bush administration is restricting who he can speak to about the seriousness of global warming.

But other than that, the Bush administration only wanted changes in the U.N. report because they were concerned with science.

Okay, the administration's political base doesn't actually accept science, preferring instead "intelligent design" and personal faith to reality. But while the White House may not care about science, at least they do care about getting the science they don't care about right. So long as it matches what they don't care about.

The ancient Roman emperor Nero came to historical infamy for fiddling when Rome burned. Well, he was a piker when compared to President George Bush. Nero merely ignored one city when it was heating up.

"We don't have a view on that."

It helps if you open your eyes.

Comments

[realpolitic]

Seems like all the massive melting of the glaciers in the North Pole and potentially Greenland would reduce the salinity of the ocean. I wonder if this effect would result in a massive dying off of fish.

[outnow]

The Bush administration wants to ignore global warming and fritter away our resources on arms races and competitions for resources and global influence. The energy crisis is intimately connected to global warming. The use of petroleum for generating energy is the root of the problem for global warming and resources wars. Terrorism is also a result of the use of petroleum.

Nero had plans to rebuild what was burned. So he played the lyre while Rome burned. Bush has no plans except for securing short-term profits for oil and oil-service cronies. Meanwhile, the greatest challenge to the survival of humanity will be exacerbated by the energy policy set when Bush took office. The plan was to invade Iraq and to continue to ignore global warming.

China has sacrificed its ecological wellbeing for economic growth, too. The environmental disaster of global warming with its shortages of food and water will be Bush's legacy. Population control should have been implemented long ago. This is the sacred cow that nobody discusses.

The ruling elites have determined that short-term financial profits during their lifetimes are more important that the survival of the human race. Therein lies their incredible hypocrisy. All their talk about values is self-serving. Real security is sustainability of life on this planet.

The chance of being killed by a "terrorist" is almost zero. Your children's chance of living to a ripe old age is now almost zero. It's not denial, just lies.

[ljsfolly]

Maybe bush and his crowd are so backward they don't know what anyone is talking about. After all he had those non scientist change the words on everything put out by the administration. Maybe he couldn't understand the words before. I don't think bush is as dumb as he plays but I do not think he has enough brains to even comment on what seems out of his league. I say, anyone out these that actually saw him in school and did he graduate or did daddy pay for that too. His time off from real war like activities in the National Guard would be a hoot if he was treated like the guard is now, serving in the war he made. Can you see him? He was training as a pilot in the guard so he might have been a fly boy. I am going to have nightmares....

[jay1975]

All I know is this, here in southern Colorado we are being told to be prepared to shovel the global warming off of our driveways tomorrow.

[freedomis]

WATER

Where can life be if 98% of what our life forms are refuses to make an appearance in the form of precipitation in as diverse places as Georgia, USA, the countries of southern Europe and Turkey and Australia?

As the ice floes, glaciers, and big chunks of the ice sheets at the poles break off setting up a chain reaction that is changing and will change more of the weather patterns that have been of a stable influence.

To the raping of the planet earth for a few dollars more; cutting vast groves of trees that are used to absorb carbon emissions and supply oxygen, a staff of life. A cycle of life for flora and fauna.

Environmental events throughout the world reflect changes significant; a dry river, the Amazon, a polar bear that can’t find ice, killer cyclones that batter Bangladesh, people praying for rain in Tennessee, Mount Kilimanjaro dry, the Great Lakes drying up; drought, the ultimate consequence.

Repair? I don’t know how but it would require that the whole world work together. Reality? Forget it.

Tony 11/15/07 Of course there is more and “the cup runneth over”, How long? Hope our kids are smarter than we are.

[ShaunHammer]

better technology always tends to yield more efficiency. Computers 50 years ago took up the footprint of a small house and had their own supercooling system that would make an industrial AC look small by comparison.
Everything we own will be more efficient in the future as well, I for one can't wait till my car runs off of water. Raising government taxes on oil at this stage is not going to help anything except for destroy our economy. We have been built on oil, it has taken us from the dark ages where everything was difficult in life to this comforted life we know.
So the question is, what can we actually do until that technology is here?

[Spikethedog]

So, the question that the Bush Administration wouldn't answer has to be asked of Elisberg:
"How much global warming do YOU find acceptable?

Blaming Bush for global warming is just one more hysterical Demorat chant around the fire.

China adds 250,000 people a day, each day, every day to the planet.

Do you think they're going to give up their SUV's?

Oh, wait.....they don't have SUV's, you say. What they do have is coal-fired energy that adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than Elisberg cares to mention.

So let's see if he can answer: "How much global warming do YOU find acceptable?"

[Ben Dixon]

Reducing CO2 emmisions is only half of the equation. Even if tomorrow man kind magically stopped all industrial additions of atmospheric CO2 we would still be adding more through natural resperation. What we must do is also reserach ways to remove CO2 from the air, either by planets or by technology.

[realpolitic]

Well, global warming may be a myth to right-wingers who can casually dismiss evidence. The North Pole has been frozen for 100,000 years. Over the last few decades, satellite photos show it has dramatically reduced in size. Countries are now speaking of sea lanes through the North Pole in summer months and scientists say by the end of the century the North Pole will no longer be frozen at all. Also, at present 98% of the world's mountain glaciers are melting. If this evidence all wasn't a "myth", I would be concerned.

[realpolitic]

The Bush administration doesn't have a view on scientific conclusions. They are solidly behind war and dismantling our civil liberties. Regarding the other "stuff", they will get back to us later.

[hopeless277]

It's too late. There is nothing we CAN do at this point. The planet has a fever and we are the virus causing it. We'll either get burned off this rock or learn to live in balance with our surroundings. One guess which way humanity goes.

[Wilson33]

I guess these "world" scientists are the same scientists who 30 years ago told us we were going to freeze to death if we didn't do something soon. These are the same scientists who told us just 10 years ago that the ozone was disappearing and if we didn't do anything soon, we would burn. These are the same scientists who told us that the bird flu and SARS were going to kill us all. These are the same scientists who have predicted killer hurricances for the past two years only to have none. These were the same scientists who told us acid rain was going to kill us.

I could go on...

And how much do you want to bet that by 2012 (the end of civilation as we know it) will be pushed back to 2032, then 2052, then 2072?

Climate change is real, but it is not and will not be "catastrophic" as your "world" scientists would have you believe.

And don't you libs HATE fearmongering?

[rockymountainhigh]

Has anyone who was part of this study figured out how to make a computer model that can accurately account for the effects of cloud cover and how it cools the climate? I didn't think so. If we are to believe all of the global warming hype(that is what it is, as the science is still flawed)should we believe that every day is sunny with blue skies? Is every day cloudy? Do the scientists just guess about how cloud cover affects climate? How about all of those flawed temperature readings from the NOAA weather stations? I recently saw a reprot that over 70% of them are improperly placed, giving faulty reading, almost always to the warmer side. 1998 the hottest year on record? Nope....not any more...that was 1934, when there was much less CO2 in the atmosphere. Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with cutting down on emissions in general, being more efficient with the energy we use, and getting ourselves off of our oil addiction. However, the climate alarmists are no better than the Iraq alarmists. You use fear to try and prove your point. OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD...WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW OR WE MAY WAKE UP TO A MUSHROOM CLOUD COMPLIMENTS OF SADAAM.(Replace mushroom cloud with rising sea levels, and you are essentially seeing the same methods as used in the run up to Iraq)

[Fairfloss]

What is China's answers to this problem, India and those living in Hugo Chavez-land?

Just what do you want "the Bush Administration" to do?

I don't doubt we recycle more than most countries, we, as consumers are using all manner of fuel efficient modes of transportation.

When we can afford to use solar panels we do, when the we are ALLOWED to use wind turbines, we do.

We have all sort of measures in place to prevent the use of harmful products and industries, not to mention the protection of our forest, etc.

Isn't this the people's responsibility ALL OVER THE WORLD and not just one man?

[Jane]

Well, I think they are going to let the Free Market take care of it. Look what a great job the FM has done with mortgages.