George W Bush Looks Like a Fool, Once More
June 26th, 2006 | by Dr. Forbush |Today at the White House George W Bush was quoted in an answer to a question about Global Warming spurred by the recent unusual weather in Washington DC saying the following.
“I have said consistently,” answered Bush, “that global warming is a serious problem. There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary … to be good stewards of the environment, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil…”
Bill Blakemore of ABC News reports this as another occurrence of George W Bush claiming that scientists are still debating whether Global Warming is manmade or a natural phenomenon. But Mr. Blakemore finally does the right thing; he calls the Presidents bluff and tells us that President Bush is with the Flat Earth society in his opinion. President Bush tells us that we need to get beyond this debate, when the truth is that he looks like a fool supporting the doubt being spread by oil executives for 15 years while the rest of the scientific community agrees that the only way to combat global warming is to stop emitting CO2 and plant trees to absorb as much CO2 as we can out of the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels is playing with fire, heating the Earth into a climate that humans have never lived in.
For too long, the oil companies have spent millions of dollars in paying “scientists” to create doubt in the public’s collective mind that global warming is not the fault of the increase in man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels. But respected scientists have been say that it isn’t a question for debate any longer. The heating is above the “noise” level and the question is now what can we do about this problem?
We need to tell the President to stop pretending that there is a debate, it makes him look like a fool.
—————————————————–
Don’t forget what Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit
14 Responses to “George W Bush Looks Like a Fool, Once More”
By ken grandlund on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
I sure wish this was the only thing we could blame Bush for looking foolish about. Sadly, this is just par for the course.
Of course manmade emissions affect the atmosphere. Regardless of whether or not they are the sole factor for our increasing greenhouse effects, the most prudent course of action is to try to diminish man’s impact of the atmosphere, and other vital earth systems. And even if other non-manmade factors come in to play, at least we can do something about our own actions. Waiting around for the rapture to save everyone just doesn’t cut it.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
The truth is that global warming is both natural and contributed to by man. The earth’s cooling and warming, over tens of thousands of years, is cyclical and the fact is that we would be warming even if man had never burned a polution contributing substance or used an ozone damaging propellant. There is little doubt in my mind that we are contributing to the warming and that our actions are accelerating the process.
I think it should be pointed out, however, that Bush actually comes down with us in assuming that man is contributing to the warming or else he would not be talking about getting on with the technologies that might mitigate human contributions to the warming.
By Dr. Forbush on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
Craig, If you the data, the natural warming should be about to end, and if it wasn’t for man we would be about to enter into another ice age. Whether that is good or bad, it could be debated. However, to even make a statement that there is a debate between “natural” and “manmade” warming just means that he doesn’t care what the scientific community thinks. How can we expect him to take their advice on any issue?
By Liberal Army Wife on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
when I saw the headline, all I could say was ” duh”. LOOK like a fool? for heaven’s sake, what he has been saying for years, parroting that idiotic twaddle that there IS no global warming, all the same old oil company propaganda, makes him SOUND like a fool. NOW he finally realizes that there really is a problem. [sigh] better late than never. maybe NOW we can get on with finding some solutions? Better hybrids, higher cafe standards, the Clean Air Act ratification?
LAW
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
Doctor,
I’d love to look at the evidence, assuming you have a link. As far as my understanding goes, the earth, in past cycles, has often been much warmer than it is now. How can we be sure that we would have reached the peak? I’m not an expert in the field and I’m not saying you’re not correct. I’m saying that you’ve found a lacuna in my knowledge, any increase of which is much to be desired.
As for the warming/ice age debate, I come down in favor of the warming.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
Also, if I can find it, in a previous pronouncement from the president, Bush stated unequivocably that humans are contributing considerably to the warming.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
This is not what I was talking about above but it will do.
By Dr. Forbush on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
Look at my post here.
But, there is plenty more if you just do a web search.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
I’m Sorry, Doctor, but how does that proove that we had reached the peak heat point and would have headed south except for human contributions. What I see are charts that show exactly what I said earlier, that in at least some of the past heating cycles, 320,000 years ago for example, the temperatures have gone higher than they are at present. The CO2 levels that you use to show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures ALSO have been higher in some of the past than they have been now and I see no evidence there that the CO2 levels, if not for the human contribution, was going to drop, bringing the global temperatures down. Further, it is possible that this current cycle of warming will eventually reach the peaks that it has in past cycles and then, as it has in the past, cool again. I just don’t see it. Our current warming period may be rare but I hope you’re not trying to say that human contributions to the atmosphere were responsible for the warming 320,000 years ago.
I think you’re drawing an unwarranted conclusion from this evidence. I simply don’t believe that one can conclude from this evidence that human contributions can be blamed for causing us NOT to be about to go into the next plunge to ice age. I have no doubt that we are in for much different weather than we grew up with. I doubt that there’s anything unique about it, however, taking the long view of earth’s history and, as I said above, given the choice between a warmer earth or a cooling earth, for me and for my decedents, I’ll take warming over cooling any day…er, any eon…
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply
Okay, I’ve rethought what I said above.
First I misunderstood your claim. Sorry about that. You said “the natural warming should be about to end, and if it wasn’t for man we would be about to enter into another ice age.”
The “should be about to end” part, I have no problem with. If this cycle follows the pattern of the previous cycles shown, it should peak in the coming centuries within the range of 2 to 4 degrees centegrade above the 1950 level at the end of the chart. One observation, as your article mentions, millions of years ago, the earth was much warmer than now. It may be that this cycle will peak at a somewhat higher temperature.
My problem is with the “if it wasn’t for man we would be about to enter into another ice age[]” part of the claim. After all, who knows, we may yet enter it. This is my point. Until the earth is actually 4-6 degrees warmer than in the last 400,000 years, we can’t say that this current cycle won’t end and the cooling cycle begin and even then, such temperatures won’t be unprecedented in the record of earth temperatures. What I mean is, until this current warming period actually shows itself to be quite different than the previous peaks, the charts don’t prove that we won’t simply reach a temperature peak comparable to previous peaks and start cooling. I understand that you don’t want to wait to see if that does happen but until that happens or doesn’t, the charts don’t prove what you claim.
What I find so interesting is that the temp chart in your article shows that the most recent 80,000 to 90,000 year period has been quite different than is found in other peaks. That is, it has been more stable over a longer period of time, a period of time that cannot be accounted for by an industrial revolution. Does anyone have any idea what that might be about?
I am convinced that human activity is contributing to warming, by the way. I’m not trying to say that we’re not. However, I’m trying to see how your evidence proves your claim.
By Dr. Forbush on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
Sorry about not replying sooner…
This is the simplified argument, I could go into details on each point, but I’d just like to make the outline clear first.
1) If you look at the data over the last 400,000 years there are periods of low temperatures and short bursts of higher temperatures.
The second graph shows the average CO2 measured in Hawaii over the last 50 years which shows small fluctuations over each year and an average increase over the 50 years.
2) We are currently in one of the higher temperature bursts. As you have pointed out, that period is much longer than the other temperature bursts, but I don’t know the reason for the length. I also would expect that it isn’t caused by man, but I also wouldn’t rule it out either. I could expand on this later.
3) If you look at the CO2 levels, they track with the temperature.
4) We should be able to assume that CO2 levels increase first, causing more heat to be trapped hence raising the temperature. (If you know of a way that raising the temperature first will cause the CO2 to raise please share it with me. For example, raising the temperature would accelerate plant growth. But more plant growth would trap more CO2, not release it. )
5) Over the last 400,000 years CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppm and 280 ppm.
6) One hundred years ago the average CO2 levels were around 280 ppm, which is near the 400,000 year high.
7) Man started burning coal and oil at high levels over the last 130 years and continued to burn it at higher and higher rates putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.
9) The CO2 levels are currently close to 380 ppm which is certainly above the 400,000 year high of about 320 ppm. And, it continues to rise as we burn more fossil fuels.
Conclusion: The Earth will continue to heat up over the next 100 years no matter what we do until it comes to an equilibrium based on this data and assume a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature of about 8 degrees C above average. And, the increase in CO2 has dramatically increased over this last 100 years. And man has been responsible for putting tons of CO2 in the atmosphere as well as clearing many of the plants that would normally absorb the fluctuations. Hence, man is responsible for the rising temperature of the Earth which will ultimately be at higher than the 400,000 year high by at least 6 degrees.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
Thanks, Dr.,
That helps a lot. One question. I’m not certain that the CO2 levels are equal at all areas of the earth and, it is possible, that at some areas, it is always higher to a statistically significant degree in certain areas than in others — for example, in areas of volcanic activity. This might explain significantly higher levels of C02 around Hawaii, for example. In other words, I’m troubled that the second graph only measures levels at one place, rather than the average globally. Do you know what the global average ppm of CO2 is and how it has tracked?
By Dr. Forbush on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
First of all, volcanos give off Sulfur Dioxide, SO2, not CO2. It smells like rotten eggs and makes acid rain. But, even if it were a result of volcanic activity the measurement is taken above the volcanic activity. CO2 disperses rather quickly and measurements taken around the world agree with the Hawaii data. You could take data in your house and see that it is higher than what they measure in Hawaii simply because you are breathing there. But, the Hawaii data shows the change over 50 years of continuous measurement that you don’t have at your house. So, you can match the point of today with the Hawaii data, but not the point of 50 years ago. But you can draw the conclusion that since they match today they could be matched 50 years ago if you measured it anywhere.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
I’ve learned a lot, Doctor. Thanks.