HOME /
chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.
Whopper of the Week: George W. Bush
Timothy NoahPosted Friday, March 16, 2001, at 11:55 AM ET"[W]e must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers. This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change. ..."
--March 13 letter from the president to Sens. Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts, explaining why he no longer favors mandatory reduction of CO2 emissions from power plants
Q: One follow-up. Does the president personally believe that carbon dioxide emissions lead to global warming?
Ari Fleischer: Evidence does suggest that CO2 does play a role in global warming. But that's separate from it being a pollutant.
--White House press briefing, March 15 (should be available in a day or two at this site)
"Careful measurements have confirmed that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that human activities are the primary cause. CO2 measurements have been taken directly from the atmosphere over the past few decades. CO2 trends for earlier times have been derived from measurements of CO2 trapped in air bubbles in glacial or polar ice.
"The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times cannot be explained by natural causes. CO2 concentrations have varied naturally throughout Earth's history. However, CO2 concentrations are now higher than any seen in at least the past 450,000 years."
--The Environmental Protection Agency's Global Warming FAQ
Got a whopper? Send it to . To be considered, an entry must be an unambiguous lie paired with an unambiguous refutation, and both must be derived from some appropriately reliable public source. Preference will be given to newspapers and other documents that Chatterbox can link to online.
Whopper Archive:
March 9, 2001: Russ Freyman, spokesman, National Association of Manufacturers
March 2, 2001: Paul O'Neill
Feb. 23, 2001: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Feb. 16, 2001: Oscar spokesman John Pavlik
Feb. 9, 2001: Lynne Cheney
Feb. 2, 2001: Bobby Thomson
Jan. 26, 2001: Denise Rich
E-mail Timothy Noah at .
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate. Reader Comments From The Fray:
It seems to me that most of the [Fray] comments on this subject miss the point entirely.
During the campaign last fall, the Bushies characterized global warming as a matter of national security. EPA Secretary Whitman has concurred.
Now we aren't going to do anything about CO2 emissions because they might have a negative effect on consumers? C'mon, guys, it either is important or it isn't. If it is a matter of national security, then maybe we consumers should have to bear some of the economic and social costs. We certainly have reaped some of the benefits over the years of unregulated emissions.
--Brian
(To reply, click here.)
Science is full of maybes, and science for profit is easy to influence. It's difficult for the non-specialist to enter into a specific field (such as climatology) and have a meaningful discussion. It's always important to consider all of the arguments and then look at where the money to fund the science might come from and what sort of slant that might give to the reporting...There are many climatologists studying global warming, and there are many large companies with a vested interest in maintaining the current U.S. energy policy. Many of these companies are funding private research labs and giving out university grants. Scientists who want more grants, and who want to travel the world giving lectures, will discredit the legitimacy of the global warming theory. It is difficult for organizations concerned with environmental change to match this type of charm, especially given the increasing reliance of universities on private funding (what many are referring to as the "privatization" of science).
So, as an outsider to the field of climatology, on whatever report you choose to base your opinion, it's important to consider the money structure of the situation--who has the money and what do they want? It's also important to consider that several European countries, including our good buddy the UK, have met the 10% decrease in CO2 output called for by the Kyoto agreement, and many foreigners are becoming increasingly frustrated by U.S. indifference on the issue.
--Rubby
(To reply, click here.)
Bush's only response to energy problems has been to scrap environmental protections. He has not called for 1) greater conservation measures, 2) suggested that power plants be retro-fitted once they are completed, 3) called for expanded funding from energy saving programs like mass-transit 4) criticized OPEC for further restricting the supply of oil, as it did last week by one million barrels a day, or 5) insisted that oil pumped from American wells, particularly those on federal land, be sold in America (much of the oil from federal land in Alaska goes to Japan). What all this suggests is that Bush's interest in energy shortages lies primarily in the pretext they offer for eliminating environmental protection.
When Cheney was still an oil exc., he praised OPEC for cutting supplies and raising the price of oil. Right now energy companies are enjoying record profits. Do you see a pattern emerging here?
--Balzac
(To reply, click here.)
(3/20)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
What It Will Cost You To Deny Illegal Immigrants Health Insurance
Stupid Drug Story of the Week: NBC's Today Show Discovers Huffing
Can the Government Call God Jesus? What About Allah?
How Twilight Made Goth Fashion Mainstream
Is Disney's The Suite Life Making Your Child Into an Evil Lothario?
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Reader Comments From The Fray:
It seems to me that most of the [Fray] comments on this subject miss the point entirely.
During the campaign last fall, the Bushies characterized global warming as a matter of national security. EPA Secretary Whitman has concurred.
Now we aren't going to do anything about CO2 emissions because they might have a negative effect on consumers? C'mon, guys, it either is important or it isn't. If it is a matter of national security, then maybe we consumers should have to bear some of the economic and social costs. We certainly have reaped some of the benefits over the years of unregulated emissions.
--Brian
(To reply, click here.)
Science is full of maybes, and science for profit is easy to influence. It's difficult for the non-specialist to enter into a specific field (such as climatology) and have a meaningful discussion. It's always important to consider all of the arguments and then look at where the money to fund the science might come from and what sort of slant that might give to the reporting...There are many climatologists studying global warming, and there are many large companies with a vested interest in maintaining the current U.S. energy policy. Many of these companies are funding private research labs and giving out university grants. Scientists who want more grants, and who want to travel the world giving lectures, will discredit the legitimacy of the global warming theory. It is difficult for organizations concerned with environmental change to match this type of charm, especially given the increasing reliance of universities on private funding (what many are referring to as the "privatization" of science).
So, as an outsider to the field of climatology, on whatever report you choose to base your opinion, it's important to consider the money structure of the situation--who has the money and what do they want? It's also important to consider that several European countries, including our good buddy the UK, have met the 10% decrease in CO2 output called for by the Kyoto agreement, and many foreigners are becoming increasingly frustrated by U.S. indifference on the issue.
--Rubby
(To reply, click here.)
Bush's only response to energy problems has been to scrap environmental protections. He has not called for 1) greater conservation measures, 2) suggested that power plants be retro-fitted once they are completed, 3) called for expanded funding from energy saving programs like mass-transit 4) criticized OPEC for further restricting the supply of oil, as it did last week by one million barrels a day, or 5) insisted that oil pumped from American wells, particularly those on federal land, be sold in America (much of the oil from federal land in Alaska goes to Japan). What all this suggests is that Bush's interest in energy shortages lies primarily in the pretext they offer for eliminating environmental protection.
When Cheney was still an oil exc., he praised OPEC for cutting supplies and raising the price of oil. Right now energy companies are enjoying record profits. Do you see a pattern emerging here?
--Balzac
(To reply, click here.)
(3/20)