W. House accused of spinning climate change

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by freeny, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #2
    What did you expect...
    No, seriously. The man is a large industry puppet, and there is no way in hell Exon or Mobile would want you know that Greenland is melting faster than a Slurpee in August.
     
  2. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Can Congress summon the President and demand he produces the documents? Or does that only happen if they impeach him?
     
  3. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #4
    Kinda like US vs Nixon. No the congress can demand, and it's likely he'll call on Executive privildge, and the documents will never be seen. The only chance is that the media will create enough fuss to produce political pressure on them.
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    frankly, you shouldn't be. anyone who's been paying attention to how this administration routinely edits out from documents anything that's counter to its "environmental ideology" has guessed this was the case.
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    Where have these people been? we have been talking about this spin machine for years. Bush for the first time used the term Global warming in a speech this past state of the union. His administration has been spinning this for 6 years. More Republican lies but whats new. It all about the corporations quick profits. This man and his policys are a discrace to our nation.

    Its discusting to think science is being spun by the NeoCons but here is another example. What will we find out tomorrow?
     
  6. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    Didn't we already hear about this? Or was that one of the other scientific issues subjected to a Bush obfuscatory minority report?
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Well, I've certainly known about it for at least a year, so I don't know where you've all been. There have been several news items about how the WH has been appointing political hacks to rewrite and edit just about everything produced by NASA and any other agency dealing with climate, evolution, you name it.
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    It's old news, but new proof. This particular evidence of the administration's actions is new. Anyone paying attention has known about this for a long time though.
     
  9. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #10
    When Obama is president he'd better start re-planting the rainforest.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    Your point is?
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    If it were only that simple. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #13
    Too bad it's in South America!
     
  13. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #14
    Although I suspect you're far from serious, that would actually be a much better use of American taxpayers money than funnelling cash to the war profiteers. So yeah, I hope he does just that.
    And Central America, and Africa, and Asia, and Indonesia, and Australia. You Americans and your georgeraphy ;)
     
  14. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #15
    No, the point was that we can only be responsible for taking care of what's ours.
     
  15. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    True, although alleviating some of the economic pressures on developing countries with rain forest will help slow the destruction. This a US President can do.

    Also stopping European & American (and Anglo-Australian) mining companies from continuing with their current bribe-then-destroy business practices wouldn't hurt.
     
  16. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    Complete Bull. The US can change our import laws to protect certain resources and put pressure on elimiting or reducing harmful practices. The US can support (rather than try to scuttle) international treaties such as Kyoto, and use international bodies such as the WTO, UN, etc. to support higher environmental standards. The US can fund environmentally sensible projects through USAID and steer the World Bank and IMF to do the same.

    Should I go on?

    Of course, if we are going to try to lead the world in a positive direction, we have to walk the walk ourselves.
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    You seem to be forgetting that Libertarians' responsibilities end at the large fence around their private property.
     
  18. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #20
    Well, actually I'd like to know what we (and no one else evidently) are importing that are causing Brazil to destroy rainforests. I have no problem with encouraging trade partners to show a little restraint and common sense with their resources rather than slashing and burning just to make a buck.

    It just would be nice to see other countries show the kind of restraint and concern for their own countries that's expected of us.

    I don't support Kyoto though primarily because of the unfair terms it gives to countries like India and China which have populations far larger than ours. It's the wrong solution to the right problem.
     
  19. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #21
    Beef for one.
     
  20. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #22
    and North America
    of course that one has been already mostly wiped out.
    anyone supporting a complete banning of logging (and re-planting of farm land) in oregon, washington and british columbia?
     
  21. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  22. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #24
    First of all, the argument that because other countries are also importing goods excuses any US behavior is exceedingly defeatist. The US has tremendous influence. In addition to being the world's second biggest market (after the EU), we weild political power to put pressure on other countries to follow our line AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, we can collaborate with other major markets/countries to put restrictions in place. You can bet that if the the NAFTA and EU countries all started clamouring for something, the world would take notice. Add ASEAN in and you've got more clout. Keep going.

    As for imports, in addition to Beef, I'd note other agricultural products including coffee, sugar, nuts, fruits, and fish; and all the various forms of wood and paper products.

    http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/product/enduse/imports/c3510.html
     
  23. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    So let's see if I understand this correctly. The US has enough influence to bring democracy to Iraq and prevent Iran, North Korea et al. from developing nuclear weapons, yet we don't have enough influence to shape logging policy in a foreign country?
     

Share This Page