U.S. Said To Squash Greenhouse Gas Cuts

Global Pact To Cut Emissions 20% By 2020 Faces White House Objections, Environmentalists Reveal

(AP)  The United States is preparing to reject new targets on climate change at a Group of Eight summit next month, dashing German and British hopes for a new global pact on carbon emissions, according to a document released by environmentalists.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, holding the rotating presidency of both the G-8 bloc of industrialized nations and the European Union, wants the June meeting to agree on targets for cuts in greenhouse gas output and a timetable for a major agreement on emissions reduction to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

But unattributed comments written on a draft summit communique, which Greenpeace said were written by U.S. officials and handed to the group by an undisclosed third party, suggest the White House has major reservations.

"The U.S. still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement," the notes on the document read. "The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple 'red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to."

The 27 EU members have agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 — building on Kyoto, which runs through 2012 — and by 30 percent if a broader international agreement can be reached.

Though Merkel and outgoing British leader Tony Blair — who made climate change a key priority for his final weeks in office — have pressed President Bush to back a new agreement, the document claimed the White House is "fundamentally opposed" to many of the European objectives.

The U.S., the world's biggest polluter, did not ratify the Kyoto agreement through which developed countries agreed to cut emissions by 5 percent below their 1990 level by 2012.

Merkel is seeking to win agreements for a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and bold commitments to energy efficiency strategies at the summit in Heiligendamm, on Germany's Baltic Sea coast, June 6-8.

The draft communique also included a commitment to curb the rise in average temperatures this century to 3.6 degrees, said the environmental group Greenpeace — which has published two leaked versions of the document. Without significant efforts, the rise is estimated to rise as much as 11 degrees, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Following talks in Washington with Bush on May 17, Blair said he believed "it is possible that we will see action — and at least the beginnings of that action at the G-8."

James Turner, a Greenpeace spokesman, said the group was confident the leaked comments were made by a U.S. official. "The document is from a stable and trusted source," he said.

Merkel on Thursday acknowledged negotiations could be problematic. "On the international level, the array of interests is more contradictory," she said. "I don't yet know, if there will be a success in Heiligendamm," where the G-8 summit is being held.

Comments Greenpeace attributed to U.S. officials said the White House had "never agreed to any of the climate language present" in the draft communique.

"We have tried to 'tread lightly' but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position," read the comments.

Germany's minister for the environment, Sigmar Gabriel, warned in remarks released Saturday that the U.S. stance could create problems for successful talks at the upcoming G-8 summit.

"Discussions will be more than difficult," Gabriel told the Frankfurter Allgemeine's Sunday edition. "Although many in the USA would like to see a different policy toward global warming, the administration in Washington has not embraced this movement. For that reason, success in Heiligendamm will be very difficult."

[jumkey]

The Republican Party doesn't care about this planet or the environment. They only care about themselves, and since most of the current leaders won't be around to see the effects of global warming they are more than happy to destroy the environment if they can profit from it today.

How sick and deranged are these people that they will destroy America and their children's future for a few dollars that they will never spend anyway?

[sjc_1]

You can anticipate an alternate response from conservatives if a more liberal group were in charge of the decision. The conservatives would say something like "see, those liberals give away the farm every chance they can get..they sell us down the river for an unproven fear". This sort of labeling and name calling has to end if we are going to make good decisions that have an effect on all of us, no matter what party.

[rharrin1]

bush is opposed because it will hurt his cronies BIG BUSINESS BOTTOM LINE.

Are we still giving oil companies TAX BREAKS ???

[trumpetstuff]

It's time to make tea in the harbor again!

[dlpracer]

Just a few facts:

It is important to note that Bush alone does not have the legal power to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The Constitution allocates the power to ratify treaties to the United States Senate. At this point, the US Senate has on more than one occasion voted against national climate change policies, most recently in 2003.

Now that the Dems are in power and pledged to change the evil ways of the Republicans, which way are you willing to bet they are going to vote.

Don't hold your breath.

[dlpracer]

The European Union nations that have signed onto the Kyoto Protocol%u2014and regularly criticize the U.S. for failing to join them%u2014are falling considerably short of its requirements.

Despite the caps on carbon dioxide emissions,

Nearly every Western European nation has higher carbon emissions today than when the treaty was signed in 1997.

These emissions increases show no signs of leveling off.

Compliance with Kyoto%u2019s looming 2008%u20132012 targets will be all but impossible for most of these countries, and many are actually seeing their emissions rising faster than those in the U.S.

Nothing like "feel good" politics that accomplish little but provide sound bites for politicians as they are boarding their private jets...on both sides.

Hypocrites.

[jumkey]

How many times do Republicans need to tell us they don't care about global warming to for us to be able to say "Republicans don't care about global warming"? There is no disagreement here. That is their position.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong.

[king77shaw]

the Republican Party platform -

ENERGY policy: Big Oil
FOREIGN policy: AIPAC
HEALTHCARE: Pharma
FISCAL policy: Wall St booms while the middle class starves
NATIONAL DEFENSE: perpetual war that will only profit the corporate war machine at the expense of the troops, their families and the hundreds of thousands of innocents that get slaughtered around the world because of Republican policies.

EMPLOYMENT: create plenty of good paying jobs - in China & India
EPA: Exxon-Mobil Protection Agency
EDUCATION: why ?, best to keep the masses stupid and gullible ..
RELIGION: best to educate with myth, more pliable than the truth -

... the middle class is insignificant to the Republican Party - they seek a ruling elite and a vast working poor which consolidates wealth and power for their corporate masters, leaving very little for "we the people". America is quickly becoming a third world country riddled with debt under Republican greedership.

[sasi1-2009]

How any thinking person can still back Bush's idiotic decisions is beyond me. I totally agree with Carter, "Bush is the worst president in U.S. history". Of course he'd say I'm irrelevant also. He needs to be impeached before he does any more irrevocable damage. What a sad day it was when he was awarded the presidency in 2000. He didn't win; he was awarded.

[dlpracer]

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized, the U.S. Senate voted 95%u20130, (that's ALL SENATE DEMOCRATS for you ideologically-challenged) , that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.

On November 12, 1998, VP Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.

Any questions?

[barbaraf4]

"It is important to note that Bush alone does not have the legal power to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The Constitution allocates the power to ratify treaties to the United States Senate."
Posted by dlpracer at 11:41 AM : May 26, 2007

Unfortunately, Bush has never let something important like the Constitution stop him yet.

[prairiefox1]

SOUNDS LIKE A BIG LIE! THE USA'S CARBON FOOTPRINT IS LESS THAN BEFORE, CHINA AND SURROUNDING NATIONS HAVE NEARLY DOUBLED IT'S CARBON FOOTPRINT ALONG WITH THE SOUTH AMERICAN NATIONS! THIS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED!
GRANTED, WE NEED TO DO MORE ABOUT IT, BUT ON OUR OWN AND NOT TO THE DICTATES OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES!

[dlpracer]

Unfortunately, Bush has never let something important like the Constitution stop him yet.

Posted by barbaraf4 at 12:30 PM : May 26, 2007

---------

...please give some DETAILS to your ridiculous statement. I know you folks who read the Daily Kos, and MoveOn.org and listen to Air America hate to be challenged, but humor me and please be specific.

Try again.

[jimkun]

The argument of "the Republican administration don't have to do anything because the Democratic administration wouldn't have done anything" sounds extremely kindergartenish. Let's grow up here. The point is we have (unfortunately) a Republican administration which has done nothing in the past two terms to significantly do anything to improve the environment.

He's basically done the same for the entire US as he did for Texas, when he was governor, which is nothing.*

People may say that they want 100% proof that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. Yes, perhaps we can wait 30 years until we have the 100% proof, and then we'll live in a world without polar ice caps, severe drought, massive food and clean water shortages... Or we can do something now knowing that anyway pollution is something we should be cutting back on anyway.

* Reference: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_6_84/ai_62896434

[cbs_oliver]

The policy of waging asymetric warfare for world domination is not just military it is also economic and environmental.

Many of those who are sufficiently priviledged will be able to weather global warming even while others are made extinct.

While it would seem that Christ's teachings would lead most Americans to abore such callous strategies that does not seem to be happening.

Perhaps this really is not a Christian country after all.

[dlpracer]

The argument of "the Republican administration don't have to do anything because the Democratic administration wouldn't have done anything" sounds extremely kindergartenish.

Posted by jimkun at 12:48 PM : May 26, 2007

-------

Since reasoning isn't one of your strong points, I will go slow for YOU.

The "they didn't so we won't" argument is YOURS, not mine!

The point is, the BUSH-bashing over everything is tiring and without merit. How can Bush be even remotely responsible for global warming or its cures (if it needs a cure...that jury is still out) when it has been going on for decades. Or do you want to blame him for global cooling when that was the media's hysterical headline?

The last I checked, the government was run by three branches of government. Maybe you missed that class. The house and the senate were occupied by Dems and Repubs. And over the years, since I've been in the planet, the majority of both has been dominated by the Dems. If YOU are so naive to think (or not think) that the entire ills of the country fall on one man's shoulders, then you qualify for today's...

....IDIOT OF THE DAY AWARD.

Good luck

P.S. Name ONE environmental bill that hit Bush's desk, that he vetoed.

[cofmanaaron]

Jimkun: As a geology student, I learned the really crazy thing is that there is pretty much 100% proof that global warming is substantial and mostly human-caused. Go to any state university and ask a professor about the subject and he's very likely to agree. Many of these people who don't believe in global warming are either brainwashed, ignorant, does not accept science (like the creationist crowd), or profit from the oil companies and polluting industries (like Bush and the Republican party.

[cofmanaaron]

dipracer: you do know that the republican party controlled both houses of Congress from 1994-2006, right? Now, look in a science textbook on the matter , and any peer-reviewed science journal you can access, and you'll see that AS LONG AS YOU ACCEPT SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, global warming is evidently real and human-caused.

[king77shaw]

The global warming issue boils down to centralization of power, or energy. The Republican agenda thrives on centralization of power and at it%u2019s core is oil %u2013 conservation or any form is a threat to that power (and profits). The biggest threat being alternative, renewable energies that DECENTRALIZE power, i.e. solar/ wind/biofuels etc. If people can begin to generate their own energy individually or locally then the Republicon power structure will feel it. This is what we should be focusing on as individuals/local communities. How do we decentralize power ? It%u2019s not easy or cheap but doable in steps - it will soon be necessity:

1) If possible, burn wood for heat - it supports local economies, it%u2019s renewable and much cleaner than it used to be.
2)Grow some of your own food - Buying lettuce that travels thousands of miles doesn%u2019t make environmental/economic sense. Explore hydroponics for growing in the winter months if needed.
3)Implement solar PV panels into your household power equation.
4)Buy Hybrid autos-Implement ridesharing arrangements.
5)Don%u2019t invest in oil base energy stocks/funds-Invest in alternatives.

When the world is looking for United States to be showing leadership, we once again see the true face of the Republican power elite -GREED. Isn%u2019t it ironic that the Bush administration once said that we couldn%u2019t %u201Cafford to be wrong about WMD%u2019s in Iraq%u201D - can we be afford to be wrong about global warming?

[david1737]

dlpracer

You're so right! The world is flat and gravity doesn't really exist! Keep up the good work!!! lol

Based on some of the posts here I can smell corporate operatives trying to systematically create false doubt on this issue. Shame, Shame, Shame. To think that you'd sell out you children's and grand children's futures like that for money and power!!!

[jimfinster]

dlpracer:

Yes, I have a question.

Can you move your discussion into 2007?

[hypnotoad72]

It's what you do, rather than what you say. That's why Al Gore has lost credibility in environmentalism and now has to peddle books like "The Assault on Reason". He may have a point, but people have reasoned he's a bit two-faced on environmentalism. The latest reason, hawked by Time magazine where he's showing himself not only to waste tons of energy (3 30" computer monitors, of which he only needs 1 combined with the big TV turned on in the background!) but all that paper scattered around. Now I'm no neatnick, but amongst other things his office is a big fire hazard. Way to go, Al.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1622338_1363003,00.html

That's the proof.

[jimfinster]

Good luck

P.S. Name ONE environmental bill that hit Bush's desk, that he vetoed.
Posted by dlpracer at 01:19 PM : May 26, 2007

That is a very dishonest post. Until very recently, the Repubs held both House & Senate. He did not need to veto any environmental bills, because there were no environmental bills.

Bush has a DISMAL environmental record, plain as the nose on your face.

[jimfinster]

There will be no significant Federal action until Bush is out and the next president is in.

Sad but true.

[candojj1]

The way to solve the problem is to ban U.S. multinational corporations from doing bussineses with any of the remaining G7 nations until the U.S. acts more inline with the rest of the world instead of their own capitalistic pocetbook. Can we wait for maybe a democrat in 09? Would it change? Would that Democrat be less corrupt than this regime?

Otherwise you might try sticking a tail pipe in Bush's mouth, and dragging him around L.A. for a while.

[jimfinster]

hypnotoad72:

You neocons are obsessed with Al Gore. You should just give it up. Last time I checked, he does not hold an elected office, and is not running for one.

[barbaraf4]

hypnotoad72:

"You neocons are obsessed with Al Gore. You should just give it up. Last time I checked, he does not hold an elected office, and is not running for one."

Posted by jimfinster at 02:17 PM : May 26, 2007

Bush isn't holding an elected office either.

[dlpracer]

That is a very dishonest post. Until very recently, the Repubs held both House & Senate. He did not need to veto any environmental bills, because there were no environmental bills.

Bush has a DISMAL environmental record, plain as the nose on your face.

Posted by jimfinster at 02:04 PM : May 26, 2007

------------

...I know reading must be a chore for you...but if you can comprehend what I posted, it said: as long as I've been on the planet (1950's) the dems have had the MAJORITY most of the time. Fact, not fiction.

You say that Bush has a dismal environmental record. OK, if that is true, NAME a bill that he vetoed when it got to desk that hurt the environmental progress over previous administrations.

I want to be educated.

[dlpracer]

The way to solve the problem is to ban U.S. multinational corporations from doing bussineses with any of the remaining G7 nations until the U.S. acts more inline with the rest of the world instead of their own capitalistic pocetbook. Can we wait for maybe a democrat in 09? Would it change? Would that Democrat be less corrupt than this regime?

Otherwise you might try sticking a tail pipe in Bush's mouth, and dragging him around L.A. for a while.

Posted by bbbbbfan at 02:15 PM : May 26, 2007
------------

Yup, and you can what a difference the NEW Democrat house and senate have done for ya...grin.

Let's face it folks...YOU can call what ever party you are NOT aligned with names, and claim falsehoods and read blogs that say the other side is evil and the country is going the heck in a hand basket...but the facts remain that regardless of whether you are a D or an R or conservative or liberal...the bunch in Washington are cut from very similar cloth.

If YOU can't see that, than you need to get your head out of the sand.

[jimfinster]

dlpracer:

If YOU can read, here is a nice summary of your hero Bush's environmental record.

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/

[cdfoxtrot]

Another reason -- if any were needed -- why the sooner we get to past the '08 election, and be rid of the current moron-in-chief and his entourage, the better for all of mankind.

[dlpracer]

The NRDC, now there's an unbiased organization (sic).

Gimme a break.

The NRDC has a long history of political activity.

The NRDC was ACTIVELY involved in the 2004 Presidential race joining with LCV and the Sierra Club to work against President Bush.

This is hardly an organization that would say ANYTHING good about GWB. They campaign against ALL republicans.

Try again.

[glidescube]

The USA will never compromise on a plan that singles out America while letting India and China slide with their current levels of CO2 emissions.


A cut back means a cut back for all. There should be no special allowance to developing states.

[jimfinster]

"The NRDC was ACTIVELY involved in the 2004 Presidential race joining with LCV and the Sierra Club to work against President Bush.

This is hardly an organization that would say ANYTHING good about GWB. They campaign against ALL republicans."
Posted by dlpracer at 03:20 PM : May 26, 2007

Duh, are you really that stupid? OF COURSE they campaign against Repub candidates. That is a natural position for any environmental organization to take, given the history of the Repub Party. Try again.

[jimfinster]

ainttaken:

dlpracer is clearly an idiot, or a troll. Or both. Either way, not much point in responding...

[bobgee_1999]

dlpracer: I appreciate your request for education, since you clearly need one. Obviously Bush doesn't need to veto anything to have a poor environmental record, all he need to is make strategic political appointments in the area of the environment, rescind existing limits on air and water pollution, roll back restrictions on mining, road-building in forest land and logging, and obstruct global efforts at environmental protection, all of which he has indisputably done. As for a Dem majority throughout your life, we have had 11 presidents since the 50s, 6 of which were Republicans. I do agree with you about the current House and Senate, as well as politicians in general. As for climate change being %u201Ctripe,%u201D could you fill us in on your meteorological and geoscience credentials, because apparently most of your collegues disagree with you.

glidescube: The argument that since other countries will not be subject to restrictions we have no need to behave responsibly is idiotic. Since your dog dumps in the yard, do you follow his example?

[dlpracer]

Duh, are you really that stupid? OF COURSE they campaign against Repub candidates. That is a natural position for any environmental organization to take, given the history of the Repub Party. Try again.

Posted by jimfinster at 05:05 PM : May 26, 2007
-----------

That why Nixon formed the EPA during his administration?

YOU, try again.

[dlpracer]

Distinguished list of skeptics:

Dr. William J.R. Alexander Professor Emeritus University of Pretoria
Dr. Claude Allegre Geophysicist Institute of Geophysics
Dr. August H. Auer Former Professor of Atmospheric Science University of Wyoming
Mr. Dennis Avery Environment Economist Center for Global Food Issues
Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas Astrophysicist Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Dr. Timothy Ball Canadian Climatologist and Former Professor University of Winnipeg
Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr. Climatologist Arizona State University
Dr. Jack Barrett Chemist and Spectroscopist Formerly with Imperial College London
Dr. David Bellamy Horary Professor for Adult and Continuation Education Durham University
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Reader University of Hull
Dr. Simon Brassell Geologist University of Indiana
Dr. Reid Bryson Meteorologist University of Wisconsin-Madison
Mr Nigel Calder Former Editor The New Scientist Magazine
Dr. Robert M. Carter Geologist James Cook University
Dr. Ian Castles Fellow Australian National University
Dr.Petr Chylek Physics and Atmospheric Science Adjunct Professor Dalhousie University
Dr.Ian D. Clark Earth Sciences Professor University of Ottawa

[dlpracer]

Distinguished list of skeptics:

Dr.Paul Cooper Professor Emeritus Laurentian University
Dr.Richard S. Courtney Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr.Chris de Freitas Associate Professor and Climate Scientist The University of Auckland
Dr.Freeman J. Dyson Emeritus Professor of Physics Institute for Advanced Studies
Dr.Hugh W. Ellsaesser Physicist/Meteorologist Formerly with Livermore National Laboratory
Dr.Robert H. Essenhigh Professor of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
Dr.Christopher Essex Applied Mathematics Professor University of Western Ontario
Dr.Bill Gray Professor Emeritus Colorado State University
Dr.Vincent Gray Expert Reviewer Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr.Keith D. Hage Meteorology Professor Emeritus University of Alberta
Dr.Howard Hayden Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Connecticut
Dr.Douglas Hoyt Retired Scientist Raytheon Company
Dr.Andrei llarionov Chief Economic Adviser Russian President Vladimir Putin
Dr.Zbigniew Jaworowski Physicist and Chairman Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Dr.Ola Johanneseen Professor Nasen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center
Dr.Wibjorn Karlen Emeritus Professor Stockholm University
Dr.Aynsley Kellow Professor University of Tasmania
Dr.Madhav Khandekar Former Research Scientist Environment Canada

[dlpracer]

Distinguished list of skeptics:

Mr.William Kininmonth Former Head National Climate Centre
Dr.Hans H.J. Labohm Former Advisor to the Executive Board Clingendael Institute
Dr.Douglas Leahey meteorologist and air-quality consultant Calgary
Dr.Marcel Leroux Climatology Professor Emeritus University of Lyon
Dr.Dennis Lettenmaier Hydrology Professor University of Washington
Dr.Richard Lindzen Meteorologist Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr.Bjorn Lomborg Associate Statistics Professor University of Aarhus
Dr.Alister McFarquhar International Economist Downing College
Dr.Ross McKitrick Associate Professor University of Guelph
Dr.Patrick J. Michaels Professor of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia
Dr.Fred Michel Associate Professor Carleton University
Dr.M. R. Morgan Climate Consultant First Minister of Wales
Dr.Nils-Axel Morner Emeritus Professor Stockholm University
Dr.Tad Murty Adjunct Professor University of Ottawa
Mr.David Nowell Fellow Royal Meteorological Society
Dr.Garth W. Paltridge Director The Cooperative Research Centre for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean
Dr.Benny Peiser Professor of Social Anthropology Liverpool John Moores University
Dr.Al Pekarek Associate Professor of Geology St. Cloud State University
Dr.Roger Pielke, Sr. Meteorologist Cooperative Institute of Research
Dr.Ian Plimer Professor University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne

[jimfinster]

dlpracer:

That why Nixon formed the EPA during his administration?
Posted by dlpracer at 05:40 PM : May 26, 2007

Those were the good old days, huh? But the current Repub platform and attitude towards the environment does not REMOTELY resemble that era. I dropped out of the party many years ago, when they became absolute wwhores to corporate america, then the religous wackos took it over.

Maybe you should NOT try again...

[dlpracer]

Distinguished list of skeptics:

Dr.Harry N.A. Priem Emeritus Professor Utrecht University
Dr.Andreas Prokoph Adjunct Professor University of Ottawa
Dr.Paul Reiter Professor Institut Pasteur
Dr.Art Robinson Founder Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Dr.Arthur Rorsch Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics Leiden University
Dr.Rob Scagel Principal Consultant Pacific Consultants
Dr.Gary Sharp Director Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Dr.Nir J. Shaviv Astrophysicist The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr.Fred Singer Climatologist The Competitive Enterprise Institute
Dr.Graham Smith Associate Professor University of Western Ontario
Dr.Roy Spencer Principal Research Scientist The University of Alabama
Dr.Henrik Svensmark Climate Scientist Danish Space Research Institute
Dr.Gordon E. Swaters Applied Mathematics Professor University of Alberta
Mr George Taylor State Climatologist State of Oregon
Dr.Hendrik Tennekes Retired Director of Research Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr.Gerrit J. van der Lingen Climate Change Consultant Geoscience Research and Investigations
Dr.G. Cornelis van Koten Environmental and Climate Change Professor University of Victoria
Dr.Jan Veizer Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa

[dlpracer]

.....need I continue?

Try again.

[jimfinster]

dlpracer:

You are dense, with your skeptic list and all. That lame arguement is over.

Maybe you missed the Supreme Court ruling that classifies CO2 as a pollutant?

Maybe you missed reading the ICPP report this year?

Maybe you even missed Bonehead Bush in recent speeches, finally admitting the factual basis of global warming?

Or, maybe you are just hunkered down in your compound in Idaho, watching Fox news 24/7?

[dlpracer]

Or, maybe you are just hunkered down in your compound in Idaho, watching Fox news 24/7?

Posted by jimfinster at 06:06 PM : May 26, 2007

-----------

Don't get FOX News here in the sticks.

But what I do know, and apparently YOU don't, is that the likes of O Reilly and other FOX commentators are human-caused global warming advocates.

Probably makes ya sick knowing that you and Bill are on the same side of this issue...doesn't it...tee hee.

Another fact you can't seem to get right...jeez-o-man.

[jimfinster]

dlpracer:

Seek some professional help. Goodbye.

[barbaraf4]

dlpracer:

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a ********* piece of paper!"

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

[michellem99-2009]

Bush. He took an oath to up hold the constution.The constution is more than a piece of paper. Up hold it as we the people hold it dear. As an Amreican,I was taught to love the America our vets died for. The duty to fly the colors. I will say this as a blind person and I AM 52,that GW Bush is rude. I can not forgive him for making an AZZ of himself onTV to a blind reporter. We as a nation must care about the earth as we all live on it.This is home. Nixon resigned. Let the EPA do its job. Mr.Bush get an F- for grade. barbaraf4 well said.

[trojanny]

Not an immediate solution, but now, more than ever, stopping the massive growth of population worldwide will reduce consumers of environmentally unsafe products, & detrimental destruction/overbuilding.
2 parents - just 2 children, NOW!!

Contact www.PopulationConnection.org .

[ne_patriot7]

I think the G8 should become the G7 by kicking out the US... then they can proceed with a responsible treaty on reducing emissions causing global warming... and when the US fails to comply, hit us with sanctions...

Bush has not been bashful about championing sanctions against everyone else when they refuse to kowtow to his whims..

Let's face it... as long as this arrogant, stupid, son ofa b*tch we call a president and his corporate whoring Republicans are still in office... nothing will be progressing forward in this country or the world for that matter... only regression, calamity, terror, murder and sh*tting on the little guy... that's what this administration is good for...