I couldn’t agree more with your original post.

Why Bush the Lesser hasn’t been impeached and imprisoned for war crimes by you Americans is beyond me.

Why you voted for George II the Mad in the first place is even more so.

That’s a load of crap. People need to think for themselves. The good politicians (and voters!) do.

The post is anti-lies. Plenty of Republicans are also honest in their general dealings, and accept that global warming exists. Obviously the people who see it as anti-Republican haven’t gotten that memo.

One thing that really bugs the crap out of me about this whole global warming “Is it or isn’t it?” catfight is that no one in the political arena seems to be saying, “Wait a minute, you guys. All the things we should be doing now to be ready to cope with and counteract it – reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, developing new energy-saving technologies and cleaner sources of power, implementing a sane energy policy, and developing climate-tolerant crops, to name just a few – will be beneficial whether the planet heats up, cools down, or stays the same. And believe it or not, in any case this stuff will save us a heap of money in the long run.”

(By me, they could start by reinstating the home energy-saving tax credits from the 70s. From solar panels to extra insulation, it all comes off your taxes, not to mention your utility bills, and the government doesn’t have to shell out a dime directly. Of course, they’d have to figure out how to live more or less within a slightly smaller budget come tax time………. surely they could find a couple of things to cut here and there, like ganging up on foreign countries who just happened to look at us cross-eyed………)

(OTOH, as far as the average far-right religionocrat is concerned, the whole thing is a non-issue anyway, since the world is going to end any day now. Remember James Watt? “I don’t know how many future generations there will be before the Lord returns.” WTF??????!!!!!!!!!)

Seems to me like our whole public sector is fiddling – or maybe having Dorm Wars (do they still have those, when two guys – and it was almost always guys – would aim their stereo speakers out their windows and see who could crank ‘em up the loudest? one of the guys used to play the Fish Cheer whenever he knew a bunch of parents were around =grin=) while not only Rome but the whole planet is trying to decide if it wants to burn or not.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. If nothing else, all the hot air our government is putting out is threatening to cause a global warming crisis all by itself.

Here is a good resource for understanding the process behind the SPM and the actual reports themselves. They aren’t “withholding” the science. Each chapter in the report has to be reviewed and finalized, and this process takes time. Much of that editing involves changing wording and phrasing to make the report more readable by the audience, rather than changing the contents themselves. That’s what’s meant by making the report “match” the summary; they are editing the wording to match the parlance of the SPM, which was completed first. They could have just as well chosen to release everything in one big glob in April, but given that the report is based on science done over several years, it is highly unlikely that the main thrusts of each chapter would be greatly changed while final revisions are being make.

Also, I’d be wary of using Junk Science as a primary source of info. I can’t honestly say that I think the author has the best of intentions here.

Thanks for your comments. You may be right. He may have been just been looking for ways to justify stalling (drastic) action on CO2 reduction. However, since I tend to agree with the rationale in the speech, I prefer to assume he had more altruistic motives:)

Re. your comments:

He’s questioning the role of natural fluctuations vs. human causes.

and

He’s questioning the effectiveness of our efforts. Our attempt to reduce sulfer has possibly increased warming because sulfer reflects sunlight. That doesn’t read to me as an acknowledgment of anthropic warming, that reads to me as a criticism of taking actions and getting unexpected negative results.

He’s reporting on the uncertainties listed in the NAS report (to justify his policy choices listed later in the report)

The president said:

While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.

There are only two ways to stabilize concentration of greenhouse gases.

You said:

This doesn’t read as an acknowledgement of anthropic change, it reads as a call for limiting response.

It is a straightforward acknowledgement of anthropic climate change. He’s saying even though there are uncertainties (in degree and what constitutes a dangerous change), we know enough to start addressing the problem (greenhouse gases).

I think you probably just don’t agree with his approach to solving the problem. Here’s my take on his stance from the speech.

1. AGW is real and needs to be addressed.
2. There are still uncertainties in the science – we’re not sure how much is anthropic and how much is natural, and where the line is between dangerous and not so bad.

His policy -

1. Reduce the scientific uncertainties by increasing funding for models, research, observations, etc (per NAS recommendations)
2. Kyoto won’t fix the problem.
3. We currently don’t have a good solution to the problem, so start with the easy stuff, like conservation, efficiency etc.

Hmm. Sounds like the typical government response to most problems…