Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Attention Bush Supporters and/or Global Warming Doubters

Read this yesterday:

[President Bush] said more is known about global warming than when he first took office in 2001. Asked if it was real, Bush said, "Yes, it is real, sure is." Link.

Bush is the champion of many on the evangelical right, who also feel global warming is nonsense. So when President Bush—in theory, the most well informed man on the planet, but whose track record for obstinancy is Guinness-worthy—reverses his position on something as major as global warming, you would have to imagine it took a gargantuan stack of evidence to change his mind.

Again, I ask you: now that an oil man like President Bush has admitted his former position on global warming was wrong, how can anyone comfortably refute that?

2 comments:

sbvor said...

There is a great deal more I can and will (later) post on this topic. For now, you may find these two posts (and associated sub-links) of interest (if you care about what the directly cited peer reviewed science has to say):
================================
CO2 is Not a Problem
================================
The Current Cooling Trend
================================

Ross Pruden said...

Wait, so let me see if I've got this straight... you're saying that George Bush, a longtime skeptic of global warming, is making a public reveral of opinion for no reason at all?

I'm not a Bush supporter, but you've got to respect that the President's position grants him an unmatched capacity for aggregating information to make decisions. So when Bush changes his mind—and Bush is one of the most stubborn when it comes to reversing decisions ("Stay the path...")—one has to wonder why. I can imagine a staggering amount of evidence must have done the trick.

2500 scientists agree, at a minimum, that global warming is happening. 2500 agree, at a minimum, that humans are responsbile. That's 2500 scientists across the globe who have changed their minds, compared to almost none of them 20-30 years ago. When that many rational scientists change their opinion so broadly, that's good enough for me.

We can go back and forth debating this if you really want, but I've already had a long debate with a friend today and I grow weary; I get tired of hearing people herald the remaining 1% dissenting viewpoint... which conveniently seems to fall along party lines. If I hear polarizing terms like "liberal" one more time...