Too Funny, Presiden't Busch;'s speech errors : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

I happened to notice this on the msn home page. i had never heard of this dictionary before, the Dubya... so i checked it out. Too funny... its the presiden't's grammer and speech errors

The president's klutziness with language, which some have outrageously attempted to exploit for commercial gain, has overshadowed another linguistic trait of his. This tendency cuts in the opposite direction. It's the use of words in a highly precise but intentionally propagandistic way. If a Bushism is a gaffe or a goof, often suggesting the absence of any formal education, Bushspeak is a calculated redefinition of terms, which has as its goal making the president's policies more popular. By dint of repetition and with the help of the conintern, these catchphrases are supposed to exercise a subtle brainwashing effect on the public. Over time, positions that might have been seen as extreme or marginal take on the flavor of reasonable, mainstream views. Bushspeak is Orwell's newspeak, only less extreme. Most of the time, it doesn't invert the familiar meanings of words entirely. It merely manipulates and abuses them.

Herewith, a first lexicon:

Accountability: Federally mandated student testing. "My education improvement package ... will raise standards through local control and accountability."--George W. Bush

Affirmative Access: Meaning unclear; either affirmative action or eliminating affirmative action; n. b. affirmative action is itself a euphemism for reverse discrimination. "So, to answer your question, I support--I guess the way to put it is--affirmative access."--George W. Bush

Capital Formation: Rich people having more money. "To the degree that our tax plan creates economic recovery, it bolsters markets and bolsters capital formation,"--White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer

Death Penalty: Inheritance tax. See also "death tax." "Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector and in the heartland, we understand how unfair the death penalty is."--George W. Bush

Death Tax: Inheritance tax. "One reason family farmers are forced to sell early is because of the death tax. This is a bad tax."--George W. Bush

Faith-based: Religious. "When we see social needs in America, my administration will look first at faith-based programs and community groups."--George W. Bush

Opportunity Scholarships: Education vouchers. "If the other side spends a lot of time trashing vouchers and you say they're 'scholarships,' they're stuck. Let some jerk try to run ads against scholarships for black children."--Grover G. Norquist, conservative activist

Rebate: Tax cut. See also "tax refund" and "tax relief." "It is clear that America's working families are overpaying their tax bills by an astonishing amount and deserve a rebate."--Family Research Council President Ken Connor

Regulatory Relief: Deregulation. "Among the other programs the president has advocated is reviewing exploration on federal land so we can have energy development on federal lands; to have increased refining capacity through regulatory relief."--White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer

Smart Sanctions: Fewer sanctions. "Today, Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, sought reassurance about what Powell has dubbed 'smart sanctions.' "--National Public Radio

Tax Refund: Tax cut. See also "rebate" and "tax relief." "With the government burden on American families at an all-time high, working families need and deserve a tax 'refund.' "--Family Research Council President Ken Connor

Tax Relief: Tax cuts. See also "tax refund" and "rebate." "First of all, the president is always encouraged to hear support of tax relief by Democrats."--White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer

Trade Promotion Authority: Fast-track authority; n. b. "fast track" was an earlier, Clinton-era euphemism for more presidential authority. "In considering the grant of trade promotion authority, I urge you to give the president more leverage by broadening our options."--U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick

-- Bernice (, March 21, 2001


thanks, Bernice,

However, I would really like it if we could stop hearing so much stuff about "Busch" (love that spelling, btw).

Perhaps, since he is still not acknowledged as president, and, in fact, only "president select", and also considering what a terrible mess he's trying to make out of practically everything of value in this country, and other places as well, he should prove himself to be a true Texas Gentleman and STEP DOWN. I, for one, would not miss him much. He's even worse than I feared he would be.


-- jumpoff joe (, March 22, 2001.

Only some people seem to have a problem acknowledging reality. I for one wish him godspeed and can't wait for America to be put back on the proper path. One only has to look to the California energy problem to see what years of liberal control has done to this country.

-- Wally (, March 22, 2001.

Yeah, Wally, once there's more arsenic in your water and CO2 in your air--damn those liberals for keeping the air and water clean!

-- Betsy in NY (, March 22, 2001.

Anyone know where we can ge "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers???

-- Kelly (, March 22, 2001.

There's a very funny site with a lot of anti-Bush bumper stickers-- This is the site that prompted the famous "there ought to be limits to freedom" remark.

-- Betsy in NY (, March 22, 2001.

I guess along with it being good for us to have 'limits on our freedom', it's also okay to reverse on campaign promises to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions as a 'bad promise'. After all, a few more people with the freedom to breathe isn't important.

-- julie f. (, March 22, 2001.

Hey, Wally, this is sure some path to economic wellness. How 'bout that Bear Market?

-- Anne (, March 22, 2001.

Please explain how Bush, who has only been President for 2 months, is responsible for an economy that has been tanking for over a year now. Bush is pretty clever, but I doubt he is capable of time travel.

If an occasional speech error is the worst we get from Bush, what a refreshing change it will be after the previous occupant of the White House. And I defy anyone who must make as many public speeches as the President to do them all without making a single mistake, ever.

Despite the media's best efforts to make Bush look like an idiot, it's just not sticking. The more they try to do it, the more shrill and silly they look. But you can't blame them for trying, it's a standard play right out of their play book. Reagan spent 8 years putting up with it, and now it's Bush's turn. But I have no doubt that Bush will handle it with the same style, grace and quiet patience that Reagan did.

-- Brett (, March 23, 2001.

Ah yes, graceful, stylish oppression--how I long for the Reagan years. Those were good times--unless you were Black, or Hispanic, or gay, or a woman--or heck, anything other than a middle- or upper-class white man! Brett, how can anyone who supports a homesteading lifestyle (I'm making the assumption here that homesteaders care about the environment) support a man who has reversed campaign promises about greenhouse gases (that's CO2 to you and me), clean water (Bush supports legislation that would RAISE acceptable arsenic levels) and protected lands. Yes, that's right, good old Bush wants to drill for oil in the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge! And anyone who supports that is just stupid, arrogant and short-sighted. You don't need to know much that this man is dangerous, and what makes it even worse is that he wasn't even elected.

I am putting my soapbox away for now. Betsy Kraat Bush-n-Sons, Inc. (formerly known as the United States of America)

-- Betsy in NY (, March 23, 2001.

Oh, and by the way, the media doesn't have to try to make Dubya LOOK like an idiot, he IS an idiot.

-- Betsy in NY (, March 23, 2001.

And anyone who supports that is just stupid, arrogant and short- sighted.

Ahh, I can almost "feel" the goodness and love flowing from the caring and compassionate left. You know, the same ones who accuse the right of hate-filled, venomous name-calling and meaness. Tee-hee.

I would offer rather than "stupid", you should replace that with "informed". How about instead of "arrogant", confident. And rather than "short-sighted", perhaps farsighted would be more accurate. As in actually being able to see the "Big Picture".

Course' we will never (ever) agree on these things, but I do soooo enjoy watching how you all present your opposition to the various subjects. Careful, your venom is showing.

You don't need to know much that this man is dangerous, and what makes it even worse is that he wasn't even elected.

Dangerous? Please, feel free to expand and enlighten us "stupids" in what ways, specifically, our President intends to do harm. And by all means offer for consideration the specifics on how it came to be that we have a President, who was not even elected??!? I'm dying to know. This would be "stupid, arroganant and short-sighted" signing off. Have a great and wonderful day!

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (, March 23, 2001.

I'm sorry if I've offended you, but I'll stand by what I've said. I don't see how it's OK to drill for oil in a protected area. And the Supreme Court chose the president for us by ordering an end to the recounts. That's how. And I wasn't calling you stupid. But how is contributing towards global warming (which is not just something "liberals" made up, by the way, it's really happening) and ruining protected lands looking at "the Big Picture?" Quite the opposite, in fact.

-- Betsy in NY (, March 23, 2001.

And I think taking action against ergonomics laws (designed to protect factory workers against repetitive stress injuries), clean air and water etc. is going to hurt us all--those for voted for him AND those who didn't. I'm not here to have some exchange of smug remarks. This man is genuinely dangerous.

-- Betsy in NY (, March 23, 2001.

I guess if having his wife check out the "stars" before he made big decisions was "seeing the big picture" - Reagan qualified.

-- diane (, March 23, 2001.

I notice all the anti-Bush contributors neatly dodged my request for an explanation of how Bush is responsible for the current condition of the economy. Instead, they merely continue to resort to childish name-calling, etc. I find it a never-ending source of amusement that the so-called compasionate, caring, tolerent Left is always capable of more venomous, vicious attacks than you'll ever hear from anyone on the Right.

Anyway, I stand by my original position. Bush has a long, long way to go before he'll be worse than his predecessor. I genuinely believe that Bush cares about what is in America's best LONG-TERM interest, and will act accordingly.

-- Brett (, March 23, 2001.

Well, I wasn't the one who said anything about Bush and the economy, but since you asked: The economy isn't in terrible shape. It has slowed down, but it had to--we were at an unnatural high for a while. And when you've been going 80, and you slow to 50, it may feel like you've slowed down too much. But the economy is really healthy. Not according to Dubya, however--he WANTS consumers to think the economy is in dire straits (which it's not) so that we all think this enormous tax cut is necessary--along with his repeal of the estate tax, which is where many of our charities get the majority of their funding. That's part of Dubya's rhetoric to make us think the Democrats did such a crappy job over the last eight years. The Republicans are not your friends, people, especially the Bushes, who really just want to support big business. And sorry, however you feel about Clinton, Bush has problems of his own. He's an inexperienced playboy who is where he is because of nepotism and social promotion.

AND speaking of dodging questions, none of you Bush supporters out there have anything to say about his reversal on greenhouse gases and his move to raise acceptable levels of arsenic in water OR how Bush wants to drill for oil in the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge! And I'm glad, because frankly I don't want to hear it.

-- Betsy in NY (, March 23, 2001.

Betsy- I'll take up your challenge: Greenhouse gasses. Show me the absolute proof that global warming is accelerating beyond past norms and that so called grrenhouse gasses are the culprit if it is happening. Site the UN report all you want, but look at the conclusions page where they state that their own study cannot take into account all natural meteorilogical factors that may affect this. Look especially at water vapor and it's affect on the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere and how the widley quoted UN report admits that it cannot accurately factor this in.

Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and its affect on wildlife. The caribou herd on the arctic shelf where drilling is already taking place is thriving. Explain the threat. Should we rely on this as our only energy policy, no, but it should be a part of an overall strategy. Show me the strategy from the last 8 years that was in place to avert this. Ooops, those wacky environmentalists that were in charge didn't do a thing, dsid they.

No one is talking about raising the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water beyond what it was 3 months ago when the previous administration changed the rules on the way out the door. The levels now in place are the same levels that have been in place for municipal water supplies for the last 40 years. Even the EPA admits that before we change the rules drastically, as proposed by the previous administration, more study needs to be done. I haven't seen anything to suggest that these studies won't be done.

-- ray s. (, March 23, 2001.

Ray did much of the work for me, but I'll still add a couple of comments:

Regarding taxes, I just filed my own a couple of weeks ago, as well as calculated what my estimated tax payments will be for this coming year. I run my own home business, so I am required to file quarterly estimated taxes.

The numbers I came up with are outrageous, in my opinion, and convince me all the more that tax cuts are needed, and right now. I'll end up getting a chunk of that money back next April, because it doesn't take into account business expenses, etc. But what it really amounts to is that I am giving the government an interest-free loan over the course of the year, with money that I could be putting back into the economy instead. It's utterly ridiculous. If anyone wants to pay MORE taxes than they owe, I'm not aware of any laws that prohibit you from doing it. Write a big, fat check to the Treasury, if it makes you feel good about yourself. As for me, I'm willing to pay my fair share of taxes, but the key word there is my FAIR share.

As for Bush being beholden to big business: Well, it's clear now that his predecessor was for sale to the highest bidder, whether it be big business, special interest groups, or even a foreign government. I simply don't foresee Bush sinking that low. And as for calling Bush a "playboy", I don't see how you can accuse him of that and defend Clinton at the same time, and still keep a straight face. If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.


-- Brett (, March 23, 2001.

I'm not really defending Clinton. I'm worried about what Dubya is going to do to our planet. Here's some info I found, judge for yourselves.

Here’s the info. Bold print is mine. From the New York Times, …a Republican plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration, an initiative fiercely opposed by most Democrats and some Republicans.

"Despite the administration's daily warnings about an energy crisis," Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, said, "the only solution the president has proposed is increasing the development of our public lands, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We cannot drill our way out of this problem."

Senator Jeff Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat who wrote the bill, said he sought to balance environmental concerns with the need to increase production. In the past, many Democrats have not been inclined to push for oil drilling.

Still, the bulk of the bill focuses on conserving energy while encouraging the use and development of renewable energy like solar power and wind power.

Arctic Refuge Takes Center Stage in Energy Battle

Hillary Mayell for National Geographic News (March 13, 2001) Energy—how we use it and where it comes from—could be the political thriller of the year, epitomized by the continuing battle over drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Half of Alaska's polar bears den in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Photograph by Norbert Rosing


Americans are energy hogs. With just five percent of the world's population, the United States uses 25 percent of world energy resources. The country imports 56 percent of the oil it uses, the equivalent of 208 days a year of foreign oil.

Characterizing this reliance on outside sources as a threat to national security and to our economy, Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), head of the Senate's Natural Resources Committee, introduced a bill on February 26 calling for the opening of the Arctic refuge to oil exploration and drilling.

Despite the fact that President George W. Bush supports drilling in ANWR and Vice President Dick Cheney is forming a committee to help shepherd the bill through Congress, Murkowski conceded that the battle to pass his bill will be titanic.

"I believe it will eventually happen. Our national security demands it," Sen. Murkowski told reporters upon introducing the new bill.

The recent energy crisis in California provided some momentum for the oil industry, which says that the coastal plain could contain the largest single untapped oil deposit in the United States. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental group, says that the amount of oil that could be extracted would last the United States about six months.

Last Great Wilderness

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, located in the northeastern corner of Alaska, was first established in 1960. At times called "America's last great wilderness," the area doubled in 1980 to almost 20 million acres (8 million hectares) under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Under the act most of the refuge was designated as wilderness and therefore closed to development. A tiny corner of the refuge—1.5 million acres that came to be known as Area 1002—could be explored if Congress specifically authorized it.

In a recent speech, Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton compared the size of Area 1002 to the equivalent of a toaster in a four-bedroom house.

Conservationists argue that the "toaster" is prime habitat for wildlife. More than 160 bird species, 36 kinds of land mammals, nine marine mammal species, and 36 types of fish make their homes there, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

ANWR is the only protected intact arctic ecosystem in the United States, and it contains a wide range of habitats including coastal lagoons, barrier islands, arctic tundra, foothills, mountains, and boreal forests.

It is also sacred ground to the Gwichin Indians who live on the edge of the reserve and rely on the herds of porcupine caribou that calve in 1002 for food, clothing, tools, and ornaments.

In addition to being a permanent home to a variety of animals, the coastal plains ecosystem is a major stopover to millions of migratory birds; the eastern, western, and Rocky Mountain flyways—the aerial highways of migratory birds—all lead to Area 1002. Birds come from four continents to breed, rest, or feed in the refuge.

Half of Alaska's polar bears den there, and it is home to muskoxen, wolves, and Dall sheep. Conservationists estimate that about 130 migrating species pass through Area 1002, in addition to species that make their home in the refuge full time.

Conservation Not Extraction

The NRDC and other environmental groups argue that conservation, not extraction, is a more responsible way to deal with the energy problem. Average fuel efficiency standards for new cars, SUVs, and light trucks have not been increased in nearly a decade. The NRDC argues that by raising the standards from 24 to 39 miles per gallon over the next decade, 51 billion barrels of oil would be saved.

Opinion polls show that most Americans are opposed to drilling in ANWR. The Democrats have introduced their own bill prohibiting drilling, and the early stages of the titanic battle are being fought on the editorial pages of newspapers, as well as in the halls of Congress over the last great wilderness.

From The New Scientist: Hot warning

Climate scientists blame "most" climate change on human activity, as governments prepare for key talks

Climate scientists from around the world have thrown aside their professional caution to present a tough message to politicians currently deadlocked on how to combat global warming.

The scientists were meeting in Shanghai, China to fine-tune the latest assessment of the science of climate change by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In their summary for policy makers, they toughened their language, in particular on how far human activity can be blamed for soaring temperatures. Drafts circulated last October said simply that human activities "have contributed substantially to the observed warming over the last 50 years."

But the final text agreed in the early hours of Sunday morning said that "most of the warming is attributable to human activities". Governments are set to resume efforts to agree the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming at a UNEP Council meeting in Nairobi in February.

Strong message

"There was no new science since October, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policymakers," said the spokesman for the UN Environment Programme, Tim Higham. The changes were agreed unanimously under the chairmanship of Sir John Houghton, former head of Britain's Meteorological Office.

"The scientific consensus should sound alarm bells in every national capital," said UNEP director Klaus Toepfer.

The IPCC's latest assessment of global warming is its first for five years. It warns that temperatures will rise by between 1.4 and 5.8 °C over the coming century, depending on how successful the world is at curbing emissions of greenhouse gases.

This prediction is much worse that the 1996 estimate of a 1.0 to 3.5 °C warming. One reason is a growing pessimism about accelerating emissions. A second is lower predicted emissions of sulphur dioxide, which shades the planet.

The report notes that the 1990s were the hottest decade of the century and probably of the millennium, with 1998 the peak year.

Water world

The report cites global melting as powerful evidence that the world really is warming. Since the 1960s, there has been a 20 per cent decrease in snow cover, a 40 per cent thinning of the Arctic ice cap and a two-week reduction in the winter freeze on lakes and rivers. The scientists predict sea level will rise by between nine and 88 centimetres by 2100, endangering millions in low-lying areas.

The report goes some way to disarm sceptics. The scientists agree that up to half the warming over the past century was probably due to increased heat from the sun. This could account for the 0.3 °C warming up to 1950.

The scientists also profess ignorance about why warming at the Earth's surface does not extend upwards for more than a kilometre or so.

Glad to be green?

Even US farmers have had change of heart over global warming

THE outcome of the US presidential election may be crucial in deciding the fate of the Kyoto Protocol. If vice-president Al Gore wins then the talks, which many say were only half a day from success, could continue from where they left off. If it's victory for George W. Bush, an oil man from an oil state, they may have to start over.

For many a Bush presidency spells doom for the climate. But things may not be quite what they seem. Slowly, even Republican America is embracing the global warming issue-albeit often only to make money.

"The mood is changing in the US," says Larry Craig, a US senator from the Midwestern state of Idaho. "Energy producers increasingly share the general population's environmental ethic-with or without Kyoto." This, as chief US negotiator Frank Loy points out, is a far cry from three years ago in Kyoto. "In Kyoto, corporations came to block action. In The Hague, they contributed constructively," he says.

Craig is no green liberal himself-he is chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and board member of the National Rifle Association. He has just spent a week in The Hague in friendly talks with all sides. "I entered the climate change debate a few years ago as a sceptic," he told New Scientist. "But today, in observing the science, my scepticism is less than it was by a considerable extent. I find the scientists are in much greater agreement." When pushed, he said he believed half of global warming might be due to human activities.

And it is not just the business community that sees gains in being green. If the Protocol is finally agreed, it will probably offer tens of thousands of farmers in the US the chance to cash in by reducing the amount of ploughing they do. This cuts the oxidation of organic matter and results in more carbon being stored in soils. This novel carbon "sink" scheme survived every late-night redraft and remains on the table for when talks resume. With carbon credits eventually likely to be worth up to $50 a tonne, soil sinks could be worth more than a billion dollars a year to American farmers.

Farmers could also gain from the protocol by planting carbon sink forests on their land and by charging for wind turbines to be erected on their land. Their representatives have traditionally been hostile to the Kyoto Protocol, fearing higher energy prices. But this month the American Farm Bureau wrote to the government signalling a change of attitude if a farm bill due to come before Congress prioritises sink projects.

And if American farmers have a change of heart, so will their senators. "This is a critical shift which greatly improves the chances that the Senate will ratify the Kyoto Protocol," said Philip Clapp of the US National Environmental Trust. Assuming, of course, that there is eventually a completed Protocol to be ratified.

From the EPA website:

What's Known for Certain? Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities. It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

What's Likely but not Certain? Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete. Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernable" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." IPCC also wrote, "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability..." In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time. As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2-6°F by the year 2100. This range is primarily the result of uncertainties in the response of global climate to the buildup in greenhouse gases, as well as future greenhouse gas emission trends. The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection "would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability."

What are the Big Unknowns? Scientists have identified that our health, agriculture, water resources, forests, wildlife and coastal areas are vulnerable to the changes that global warming may bring. But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult. This is especially true when one asks how a local region will be affected. Scientists are more confident about their projections for large-scale areas (e.g., global temperature and precipitation change, average sea level rise) and less confident about the ones for small-scale areas (e.g., local temperature and precipitation changes, altered weather patterns, soil moisture changes). This is largely because the computer models used to forecast global climate change are still ill-equipped to simulate how things may change at smaller scales. [See the U.S. Climate section for more detail on climate models.] Some of the largest uncertainties are associated with events that pose the greatest risk to human societies. IPCC cautions, "Complex systems, such as the climate system, can respond in non-linear ways and produce surprises." There is the possibility that a warmer world could lead to more frequent and intense storms, including hurricanes. Preliminary evidence suggests that, once hurricanes do form, they will be stronger if the oceans are warmer due to global warming. However, the jury is still out whether or not hurricanes and other storms will become more frequent. More and more attention is being aimed at the possible link between El Niño events – the periodic warming of the equatorial Pacific Ocean – and global warming. Scientists are concerned that the accumulation of greenhouse gases could inject enough heat into Pacific waters such that El Niño events become more frequent and fierce. Here too, research has not advanced far enough to provide conclusive statements about how global warming will affect El Niño.

Living with Uncertainty Like many pioneer fields of research, the current state of global warming science can't always provide definitive answers to our questions. There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that these gases tend to warm our planet. This is the basis for concern about global warming. The fundamental scientific uncertainties are these: How much more warming will occur? How fast will this warming occur? And what are the potential adverse and beneficial effects? These uncertainties will be with us for some time, perhaps decades. Global warming poses real risks. The exact nature of these risks remains uncertain. Ultimately, this is why we have to use our best judgement – guided by the current state of science – to determine what the most appropriate response to global warming should be.

-- Betsy in NY (, March 23, 2001.

Look, I'm all for conservation and responsible management of our natural resources. I believe that there are enough checks and balances and division of power in our government so that a reasonable compromise for both sides of the fence will be reached. All these gloom-and-doom predictions about what is going to happen to the environment now that Bush is President simply won't come true. We have a President in this country, not a King. He doesn't have absolute power and authority.

However, if the current energy situation is not addressed soon, then I fear what is going on in California right now might very well spread to the rest of the nation. Which is unacceptable.


-- Brett (, March 23, 2001.

True enough, Brett, and well said--let's hope we can work it out.

-- Betsy in NY (, March 23, 2001.

Actually, I like Bush much better than I ever thought I would. My main complaint is that the former Texas Lt. Gov. moved up to the govenor slot, and now the Lt. Governor, who really runs the state is an idiot a**hole jerk named Ratliffe. He is a local boy, and is single handedly responsible for formulating all the disasterous education policies the state has. He is currently managing to alienate virtually all the different special interest groups in Texas. Ye-ha!! We have him for two more years.

-- (, March 23, 2001.


By: Alan Caruba

Let's understand something. The members of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not scientists. The constant media rubric that the IPCC is the voice of scientists is just plain wrong. They are representatives of various nations, i.e., bureaucrats, and their reports over the years about an impending global warming have been routinely revised up and down to fit the times. Apparently the times now require a new report predicting that global temperatures could rise by more 10 degrees this century, the most rapid change in the last ten millennia and more than 60% higher than the same group predicted less than six years ago.

Let it be said as loudly as possible that the IPCC is the biggest bunch of liars on the face of the planet, constantly revising the dubious data they use to create the bogus computer models on which these idiotic predictions are based.

The latest report was announced on January 22nd by Robert T. Watson, chairman of the IPCC, in Shanghai, China. The purpose is, as always, the tired, utterly discredited call to reduce energy use everywhere (with the exception of a few places like China and India) to spare the earth from a horror list of calamities that includes droughts, floods, and the spread of diseases.

Listen closely. The earth warmed about one degree Fahrenheit between 1850 and 1950. Since then, not one single piece of scientific data, largely collected from meteorological satellites, as well as radiosonde balloons, has supported the lies that the earth is warning. A half-century has passed since the last, brief warming and the only thing the current data points to is a slight cooling. Indeed, back in the 1970's, the Greens were writing books predicting a new Ice Age.

The notion that humans are causing cataclysmic changes in the earth's weather is so idiotic it requires this endless scare campaign, the mother of all hoaxes.

Some part of the earth, every year, is subject to droughts and floods. With total confidence I can predict that there will be volcanic eruptions somewhere this year. With total confidence I can predict there will be hurricanes. With total confidence I can predict there will be earthquakes. Thus it has always been and will always be. Humans have nothing to do with it!

These reports are about politics, specifically socialist politics, not science. Those who write these reports are not the least interested in what real scientists have to say on the subject of whatever weather trends are occurring.

It is Green politics that has left California, a State whose economy places it on a par with entire nations, bereft of enough energy to light the Christmas tree on the lawn of the Governor's mansion. It is Green politics that nixed the building of new nuclear plants in California to provide the energy needed by its 34 million citizens. It is Green politics that has rolling blackouts leaving parts of that State without electricity. It is Green politics that has bankrupted the State's utilities.

It is Green politics that locked up a billion dollars worth of high- grade coal in Utah. (Coal is the primary fuel used for the generation of energy in the US.) It is Green politics that recommends tearing down hydroelectric dams to save a few salmon. It is Green politics that finds an "endangered species" every time and everywhere some developer wants to build new housing or any other commercial structure. It is Green Politics that bans needed roads in US nation's forests to effectively manage those forests and to provide access if fires break out to destroy millions of dollars of the natural resources they represent.

The United Nations has been totally captured by the most fanatic Greens on the face of the earth and nothing it says about the environment has any relation to the truth. The most sophisticated computer models are barely able to predict changes in weather patterns for the next week, let alone the next decade or century.

Meanwhile, all this obscures the United Nations' relentless drive toward becoming a global government, utterly negating the sovereignty of this and all other nations. We need to put an end to this socialist subterfuge that passes itself off as the only way to avoid conflicts between nations and advocates programs that attack the core element of every society, the family. End it. End it now.


Alan Caruba, a veteran business and science writer, is the founder of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about scare campaigns designed to influence public opinion and policy. He is a regular contributor to Ether Zone.

The Center maintains an Internet site at

Published in the January 31, 2001 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 2001 Ether Zone ( Reposting permitted with this message intact.

-- William in Wi (, March 23, 2001.

So what it boils down to is the IPCC can't really quantify what the effect of man is on the environment, their computer models can't accurately predict what will or won't happen, or why it will or won't happen, but we should believe them because they have our best interests at heart.

That said, i do feel we, as a country, need to focus on and develop much better energy delivery systems. I would love to see solar panels on the roof of every house. I would love to see cars, trucks and busses designed to run economically on pure ethanol. But these are wants and wishes that need to be driven by economic and social reality in this country, rather than by scaremongering from outside.

-- ray s. (, March 23, 2001.

A suggestion for all threads. If you're quoting someone make sure you use " " marks, or some other way to show that you're quoting something. Hard to follow if you don't.

Ray wants "absolute proof that global warming is accelerating beyond past norms and that so called grrenhouse gasses are the culprit if it is happening." Read: tml

Part of that article: 'Satellite data has provided the first "direct observational evidence" that the greenhouse effect is producing long- term changes in the Earth's atmosphere, scientists said Wednesday.

Comparing satellite observations from 1970 and 1997, British researchers said accumulating greenhouse gases have limited the amount of infrared radiation escaping into space. An Imperial College of London team looked at readings of infrared light from the Earth's surface, specifically in the wavelengths absorbed by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and ozone.

"We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity: This shows the greenhouse effect is operating and what we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases," said lead investigator John Harries of London's Imperial College.

Evidence was also found of smaller increases in chlorofluorocarbons, refrigerants blamed for destroying the ozone layer that protects Earth from ultraviolet radiation.

The study was reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Atmospheric scientists not involved in the study said the satellite data provide concrete confirmation that greenhouse gases are building up.'

'However, the study did not tackle the question of whether Earth's surface temperature is actually increasing. In fact, whether this greenhouse effect will lead to global warming or global cooling is unclear, the study scientists said.

The greenhouse effect could start a cycle in which more clouds are formed, stopping the sun's energy from reaching Earth's surface in the first place, Harries said.

"The effect of clouds on the planet is very complex, and frankly we don't understand it," Harries said.'

'Drew Shindell, an atmospheric physicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said the research should end the debate over the greenhouse effect, but not over how to address the problem.

"One of the main things that cause people to be skeptical of global warming is the lack of that real, definite connection between greenhouse gases and the planet getting warmer," Shindell said. "This really gives concrete evidence for the first time that greenhouse gases are changing the energy balance of the planet."'

So. The proof of build up of gases changing our atmosphere (though I am sure some of you pollution apologists/Bush huggers will try to tap dance your way around it) is there. It's a big unknown whether this build up will lead to global warming or global cooling. I can already hear all the rhetoric about how adaptable humans are (as if we're the only species that matters to our survival and the health of the planet). Do some reading on the "Little Ice Age" about 400-500 years ago. Then think about whether you want to live with global cooling (not to mention the increased needs for heating with the sky- high fuel prices).

No absolute proof in the article cited above. No one knows what's going to happen. That in itself should be a warning to anyone whose head is not in the sand.

And since this started out being about Bush, and everyone is carrying on about dodging questions, when are the Bush supporters going to address the question posted about how it's okay to break campaign promises, how this ties in with being a decent, honorable person? Saying Bush is better than Clinton (not very difficult, after all!) does NOT make him good. Bush's character and abilities should stand or fall on their own merits, not on Clinton's.

Grumpy old coot ----

-- blanketyblank (, March 23, 2001.

Great, we have proof that greenhouse gasses exist and that they may, or may not, affect the environment. The earth's temp may go up, it may go down, it may fluctuate in some natural zone which none of this will affect, but we need to react in a drastic way right now.

As for breaking campaign promises, i am a bit disappointed but i'm not going to pass final judgement based on two months of activity. The man has four years in office and I'll judge his worth at the end of that time. I didn't judge Clinton only on the basis of Gays in the military, and I won't judge Bush on Greenhouse gasses only.

-- ray s. (, March 23, 2001.

When the carbon dioxide issue came up during the campaign, California was not suffering from these "rolling blackouts", and the nation as a whole was not paying outrageous prices for natural gas. But to impose the mandatory CO2 restrictions now would only compound those problems, and make a bad situation even worse.

Granted, permanent, long-term solutions need to be found for these problems. But what Bush is doing now is simply trying to alleviate the most immediate effects that they are having on the American people.

How many times have all of you made a decision, and then changed your mind later based on new facts or information? We do it all the time, even over trivial everyday situations. What Bush has done has simply changed his mind about CO2 restrictions, based on the current energy situation. A situation which did not exist during the presidential campaign.


-- Brett (, March 23, 2001.

"I'm sorry if I've offended you, but I'll stand by what I've said."

If I read this correctly that would mean you are sorry I was offended by being called "Stupid, arrogant & near-sighted"...but you meant what you said. Hey, no problem. It's probably just me being "oversensitive" to being called stupid, ect... But, as long as you were sincere about it, that's all that really matters. I'll just have to work on that "offended" thing.

"And the Supreme Court chose the president for us by ordering an end to the recounts. That's how."

Ahh, noowww I see. Yes, it all makes perfect sense now. If only the recounts could have gone on long enough to produce different results, President Bush would still just be Gov. Bush. Those darn Supreme Court judges, whaaat were they thinking??? Oh, have you by chance heard of the recounts that were done? After those rascals put an end to the recounting & recounting & recounting & recounting...oops, got carried away. I believe these results confirmed that President Bush was indeed "elected". But then again, maybe those rascally Bush's somehow corrupted those votes... the ones that were actually cast.

"And I wasn't calling you stupid. But how is contributing towards global warming (which is not just something "liberals" made up, by the way, it's really happening) and ruining protected lands looking at "the Big Picture?" Quite the opposite, in fact."

Who were you calling stupid? As to your global warming and ruined protected lands. I don't buy global warming, at least not in the way the liberals do. Now, I do indeed believe there will come a day when this old earth gets hot, very hot. Actually, too hot for human habitation. But that is a different story, from a different source and one that tends to get people's dander up, so I'll leave that be for now. As to the protected lands, phooy! I could waste my time talking about the fundamental issue of "land ownership" and the gov't stealing land all across the country. And things such as safe drilling. And dependency on foreign entities. But, I do not think it would have much effect, so instead I'll stick with, phooy.

"I guess if having his wife check out the "stars" before he made big decisions was "seeing the big picture" - Reagan qualified."

I'm sorry Diane, was I talking about Reagan? Or did you mean Hellary? You know, that little thing about conversing with the spirits. Or does Mrs. Bush check out the "stars" and I just missed it?

"Well, I wasn't the one who said anything about Bush and the economy, but since you asked: The economy isn't in terrible shape. It has slowed down, but it had to--we were at an unnatural high for a while. And when you've been going 80, and you slow to 50, it may feel like you've slowed down too much. But the economy is really healthy."

Ahh, I see. The layoffs, gas prices, energy problems, stock-market, rising costs, high taxes, lack of savings - - - these all contribute to a healthy economy. Now, I get it.

"Not according to Dubya, however--he WANTS consumers to think the economy is in dire straits (which it's not) so that we all think this enormous tax cut is necessary--along with his repeal of the estate tax, which is where many of our charities get the majority of their funding."

Why, that rascal! All that, just to convince us we need a tax break!! Oh, the horror!! And just think, most of us "stupid, arrogant and short-sighted" people, were convinced already!! I do believe someone already mentioned that there is nothing stopping anyone who wishes to donate additional money to the gov't, just sign the check and send it in. I'm sure they would use it wisely. Much better than the average Joe Taxpayer.

"AND speaking of dodging questions, none of you Bush supporters out there have anything to say about his reversal on greenhouse gases and his move to raise acceptable levels of arsenic in water OR how Bush wants to drill for oil in the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge!"

Well, several others have answered this pretty well for me. Although I would add - - Good! Good for him and good for us.

Well, this has been fun, but my seedlings are calling and I'm starting a batch of guinea eggs in the incubator today...first time! My raspberries and strawberries came in yesterday, yippeee!!! Gotta get those beauties in the ground, quick! Ya'll take care, have a great day and play nice!!

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (, March 24, 2001.

I'm with Wendy... Spring has officially arrived where I live, and I can think of a dozen chores that ought to be taken care of this weekend.

Bottom line, Bush is President and will be for at least the next 4 years. You can like that fact or not, but it won't change anything. Personally, I am glad to see him in charge, and I firmly believe he will put America's best interest first in every decision he makes.

-- Brett (, March 24, 2001.

If anyone has every been to what is considered a 3rd world country with little industry where the economy is real slow and everyone is real poor but they eat well, either on vacation or has lived there, they'll notice clean air ,with oxegen in it,clean streams,with fish and fresh water shrimp the size of lobsters.Yet when Americans come to visit,they'll make comments on how beautiful it is but it's sad that the people are so poor.The people there don't know they're poor.They eat everyday,their house may look less comfortable then alot of people's barns in the U.S. but they provide shelter from the rain and weather.They may not have a tv or computor games for their children.Or a microwave,washer and dryer,or even a car.We call this poverty.We'd rather have a good economy so we can buy so much wastefful products ,that we've lived without until the last hundred years ,then have a clean enviorment.There's a price for a good economy.Eventually it will cost us our lives.Big trade off.As for liberals and non liberals,one claims they'll pollute less then the other.I've seen what 12 years of Bill has done for akansas's rivers and streams,and personelly I was afraid to put my feet in a stream with all that goey, foamy, green stuff,that I was told was caused by waste from the poultry industry.Not very enviormental if you ask me.Bottom line good economy = bad enviorment.

-- Steve (, March 24, 2001.

Actually Wendy, someone else mentioned Reagan and I was just making a comment on that. Used a term you used and caught your clever fire as usual. I am getting rather used to this. God Bless -

-- diane (, March 24, 2001.

Blah, blah, blah...same old crap, same old rhetoric from the left. Despite your boy's best attempts to STEAL the election, he lost...get over it, move on. That's what you'd say to us, isn't it? I'm pleased to have a President who may occaisionally trip over language, instead of one who is constantly tripping over his pants (tangled around his ankles). What an embarrassment the past eight years have been...scandle after scandle after scandle...right up to the last 24 hours of his administration. What a disgusting pair they are. The best you can say for Hillary is that she makes Chuck Schumer look good. In conclusion, to those of you who would wish our new President ill: Up your collective arses, eat copious amounts of poop and die.

-- Karl Keller (, March 25, 2001.

the stock market is a good example of confidence in Dubya. Greenspan has cut intrest rates 3 times in less than 3 months, not enought to help shrub (little Bush). you can bet the oil, HMOs, pharmacitual corparations are counting their chickens & eggs. did i hear a rumor the civilians on the sub that sank the fishing boat were texas oil men ? Reagan conned the tax payers into building the alaskan pipe line. thay low grade oil is being sold at the port of Long Beach, Ca as cheap ship fuel. instead of tax breaks for the wealthy, why not tax incentives to save energy. reward saving & punish SUVs, etc. what happened to solar energy, it can not be taxed. why are people & jobs leaving this right to work state (OK) ? it is republican ran, why do so many people i know HAVE to have 2 jobs ? Larry

-- Larry in OK (, March 25, 2001.

Beeerother! Bush hasn't even been President long enough to bomb more than one country, how can he be responsible for the economy going down the drain? The economy WAS going down the drain thanks to ridiculous "spend like there's no tomorrow" democratic party thinking. If we need more money, we'll just add some more taxes and send some more jobs to those pretty third world countries to help them become as ridiculously unscrupulous as we are.

I don't like the republicrats or demonicans party lines and think they are pretty much one in the same. Bush is MUCH better than Prince Albert would have been; by at least ten percent. I have heard Gore owns more stock in oil than Bush and he had something to do with the water pollution that occured in KY and TN last fall, although I can't recall exactly what that was right now.(must be all the fluoride in the water) The politicians are predominately all wearing the same suit. It's up to us to keep our heads and try to discern what the real truth behind all the hogwash is. Evidently we have some troubles in that department. Too many people feel that because Bush is in they can just relax and get back to the napping they were missing out on in the last era.

However.....ergonomics to help save the factory workers from repetitive motion injuries???? What's going to save them from repetitive lack of a job? Have you noticed the jobs are just running out of this country? Mostly to China, our "most favored Nation". Yippeee! Thanks, Bill.

Off the box.

-- Doreen (, March 26, 2001.

Quote from todays paper. "but the true threats to stability and peace are these nations that are not very transparent, that hide behind the- that don't let people in to take a look and see what they're up to. They're very kind of authoritarian regimes. The true threat is whether or not one of these people decide, peak of anger, try to hold us hostage, ourselves;the Israelis, for example, to whom we'll defend, offer our defenses; the South Koreans." Now you might think I'm about to complain about the sad state of affairs in our inner city schools and some kid giving a speech in 7th grade geography class. No folks , that was our pres who graduated from an ivy league college. Hey, his job is public speaking, it's not supposed to be a sideline he might need on occasion. There are no doubt many things affecting the stock market but I believe confidence in our leader is a rather major factor. Sorry but I just can't muster any. Of course I'm sure there are those who think incoherence might be an asset.

-- jz (, March 26, 2001.

Wendy, call off your dogs. I'm not interested in being your personal punching bag. Have a great day!

-- Betsy in NY (, March 26, 2001.

And geez, Karl, so much for having an intelligent discussion.

-- Betsy in NY (, March 26, 2001.

Yeah, the economy's just fine. That's why Joe Lieberman was on the morning shows yesterday talking about how Bush's tax cut plan doesn't do enough, soon enough and that we need to give every taxpayer $300 back as soon as possible. This from the same people who weren't even sure we needed a tax cut 6 months ago.

-- ray s. (, March 26, 2001.


It appears that you are interested in the subject matter of "Global Warming" but havent made a decision on what to believe yet. I would gladly discuss this in depth but let me put it this way for now and let you make up your own mind...

Those who believe in "Global Warming" usually point to some small amount of contested and poorly collected data from the last 50 years or so to hope to prove the theory.

On the other hand, those who study geohistory or similar disciplines could point out that since earths formation through to today the earth has been on a long slow cooling trend. The evidence is in the oxygen isotopes left to us in forams. There are three long term cycles that have effected short term trends of cooling and warming, at least since life appeared on earth. These cycles are(Im doing this from memory) ten thousand, forty thousand and one hundred thousand years in length. Most times they are out of sync and they moderate each other. Occasionally two or more of these may wind up in the same phases of their cycles, drastically affecting the global climate creating greatly increased temperatures or plunging us into an ice age until these phases are no longer in sync.

So I guess the question is, should one believe a handful of politically motivated activists backed with 50 years of shoddy science or the literally millions of years of evidence lying under your feet?

-- William in Wi (, March 26, 2001.

Thanks william, but make no mistake about it, my mind has been made up on global warming for a long time. Faulty science and long term predictions based on inconclusive, short term data got this trained scientist off the global warming, sky is falling bandwagon long ago. I do keep my mind (and eyes and ears) open for any evidence that may change my mind, just haven't seen it yet. I do believe, though, that we should treat the environment better. The weather here in Central WI. this weekend made it even tougher to buy into.

-- ray s. (, March 26, 2001.

I'd like to point out that the past millions of years did NOT have 6+ BILLION people all living concurrently upon the face of the earth, a population that is estimated to double within the next mere 50 years at the rate of birth we have now. So in 40 or 50 years, we will have 12 billion people all competing for what is used up today? Producing twice as much human effluvia as we have to deal with now?

It has been noted that the ice cap of the famed Kilimanjaro will disappear in this time, due to global warming. The ancient snows that have covered those peaks for centuries are disappearing, and this is an unprecedented event in recorded human history -- geologists tell us that it is unprecedented possibly in terms of the entirty of human existance. The people who rely on the snow melt for drinking water for their livestock and themselves, as well as water to irrigate their crops have already begun to starve. These are not people in SUV's tearing across the landscape, these are subsistance farmers that would make the people on this board look like royalty. The snows that are melting now are ancient deposits and will not last forever, as some people seem to believe they will.

Someone brought up the water quality caused by (implied) the Cllinton administration. Do you really believe that the Bush administration is going to clean it up? If the carbon dioxide emission controls promised were already reneged on for monetary expedience, do you believe that Bush's administration is going to stop any other continued pollution? Or are they going to contribute to it with oil spills across the fragile tundra, failed wells (remember Bush's old Arbusto oil company, often referred to as 'El Busto'? ), and more native people's lives disrupted, not to mention that of the wildlife.

The native caribou herd MAY have been thriving up to this point, however, the permafrost of the tundra is now melting as well as the snowcaps. Perma is short for 'permanent', frost that never leaves the ground, and which has been responsible for the ecosystem that has supported the caribou's food supply from time immemorial. As the permafrost disappears, so do the plants that are able to live there, thus goes the caribou's food supply. Further, as the permafrost melts, the ground softens into a boggy mass that is untranversable to the caribou, who must move to their calving grounds to ensure the survival of the next generation. Their neccessary survival loop is being effectively cut.

Perhaps Bush's camp have not yet (please notice time frame) gotten around to reshuffling the deck, but I have even less confidence in George W. Bush's record than I had in Bill Clinton's. After Dallas violated the federal standard for ozone 26 times in one summer, Bush's response was to try to get the EPA to lower their standards. History merely repeats itself. His mishandling of air quality in the state of Texas was truly stunning. 435 people died premature deaths in 1999 in the city of Houston alone. That was the historic year in which Houston overtook Los Angeles as the city with the dirtiest air in America.

Bush has had access to the same information that anyone else has had, and made his campaign promises according to what he thought would get him elected. The simple fact is that more oil is not being 'made' somewhere deep in the earth, and the projections for oil shortages have been there all along. Anyone who experienced the previous 'oil crisis' knew what this meant, and what it means for the future. Drilling for the miniscule amount of oil in the Arctic refuge to fuel christmas tree lights on the governor's lawn squanders the resource and does nothing to address the future energy needs.

One one of the other threads it was put forth that prior to the invention of the gasoline engine, England had reached an energy crisis of their own -- they could not grow enough fodder to feed the horses that they needed for routine farm labour (remember, there were no tractors) and transportation of goods to support the human population that they had at that time. We are all reaching a similar insupportable state with our reliance on fossil fuel and human overpopulation.

-- john emdall (, March 26, 2001.


"...past millions of years did NOT have 6+ BILLION people ..."

People are not the sole source of "greenhouse gas". Just about all creatures create methane, with ruminants often creating many times that of others. Did you ever hear of Sen. Feingolds plan to catch cow farts to save the earth from global warming? I suppose you would attribute earths emergence from the last ice age to air polution caused by billions of cubic feet of wild bean induced mastodon farts?

The earth goes through these changes and alway will. There is no need to search for evil scapegoats to any real warming that may occur. The entire field of solar science has pointed out that we are going through a period of increased solar storms that will eventually have some effect on warming the earth, do you suggest that we build a giant pair of orbiting sun glasses to protect us?

You are obviously an environmentalist of some sort and want things to be "natural". Well, the "natural" overall temperature of the earth is higher than it is today so help the environment and go empty some aerosol cans.

-- William in Wi (, March 27, 2001.

John- You'd better jump on that movin' the earth thread further up the forum. The problem with basing long term climactical predictions on short term data ( and that's all recorded history is unless you go along with the earth is only 4000 years old crowd) is that it doesn't take into account the climactical changes that take place over eons. There is some evidence that we are coming out of what could be called a minor ice age (check some of the data for around 1830 if you think we haven't been much colder in recent times) and the warming we're seeing now is part of the natural curve. We need to look long term for viable energy options, and I have heard Bush and his people mention fuel cell research, wind and solar and other options which is more than the last eight years of the environmentalists ever did. We also have to look at the relatively short term consequences of our energy decisions and what they do to economy's and people today.

-- ray s (, March 27, 2001.

William in WI wrote: People are not the sole source of "greenhouse gas". Just about all creatures create methane, with ruminants often creating many times that of others. Did you ever hear of Sen. Feingolds plan to catch cow farts to save the earth from global warming?

Hey William, I live in Wisconsin too, and I never heard anything about Senator Feingold proposing any such thing. It sounds familiar as a plan, but I thought it was involving some other congressman. How about a source on that one?

-- Joy F (So.Central Wisconsin) (, March 27, 2001.


You are correct about Feingold not being the originator. It is an EPA project under the Office of Atmospheric Programs and it was most recently called the Ruminant Livestock Methane Program, a burp measuring descendant of the often rejected fart measuring program. In 1993 Feingold supported maintaining funding for the program by voting against an amendment called the Bond amendment that would have put an end to the program as defined in Clintons FDR-esque boondoggle ridden economic stimulus bill. This was a much discussed topic in the '98 election and was highlighted by commercials showing labcoated scientists leaping about pastures trying to clamp glass jars on cows butts. As funny as the commercial was, the fact is that Feingold actually wants to measure cows burps.


Discussion of the famous commercial:

~snip~< p> In July, Neumann supported an amendment to a House appropriations bill to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from funding studies of methane emissions from what he called livestock cow belching.


In Wisconsin, Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold's opponent ran a TV ad showing a scientist in a white lab coat chasing cows around a pasture, trying to capture gas emissions from their rear ends in a jar.

Over the sound of intestinal gas emissions, an announcer intoned: ''This scientist is hard at work spending your tax dollars.'' The point: Feingold backed a bill that included a methane emissions study


You should be able to listen to the commercial here: 2092198.htm

The methane emissions of cattle has become a campaign issue in Wisconsin. DEM. Russ Feingold supported legislation that funds a study on Cow Gas, which is true. Some researchers believe that a billion cattle's emissions may lead to a worsening in Global warming.


The actual voting record:

103d Congress
1st Session
April 1, 1993, 12:00 noon
Page S-4194 Temp. Record
Vote No. 95
"STIMULUS" BILL/EPA Project Funding

The Bond amendment would eliminate the proposed $23.5 million increase for three programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--this increase will triple the current funding level of $8 million for these programs.
The third program, Methane Gas Recapture, promotes the profitable use of methane gas recaptured from such sources as natural gas pipelines and cows.
The third program the Bond amendment would strike funding for, methane recapture, has a checkered history. As bizarre as it sounds, many environmentalist extremists are convinced that methane from cow flatulence is destroying the atmosphere, and they want the Government to put a stop to it. In 1989, the EPA paid for a "workshop" on the issue in Palm Springs California (which has 90-plus golf courses and 0 livestock), to give the extremists a chance to air their views. The EPA then tried to spend $19 million to study bovine flatulence, under the auspices of this program, but was blocked by Congress. The EPA has not abandoned its efforts, though. The Methane Recapture Program is still solidly committed to recapturing livestock methane. However, is a "cattle-ytic" converter really in order? A recent study by Cornell University researchers concluded that, on average, a cow only emits enough gas in one year to light one 75-watt bulb for one day. Further, the cow population is declining every year, while the human population is rising. What, or whom, should we be studying, by EPA logic? This year, the EPA has approached the "problem" from a different angle, by giving a $210,000 grant to study methane emissions from cattle belching. With all due deference to our colleagues, we do not see this expenditure as a wise use of the taxpayers' money.

We should not be in the business of paying ... to study patently ridiculous environmental theories. If our colleagues agree, they will join us in voting against this motion to table.


Needless to say, with as much money as Wisconsin was anticipated to take in for this type of foolishness, Feingold voted yea...

-- William in Wi (, March 28, 2001.

"Wendy, call off your dogs."

Down Fido! Bad, bad Spot. Sit & stay little doggies! Well now, (satisfied grin) let's see if this works.

" I'm not interested in being your personal punching bag. !"

Aw shucks, and we were having so much fun!!

"Have a great day!"

Thank You! You have a wonderful day as well!

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (, March 31, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ