Does Bush Think About His Kids and Grand Kids?

[mrmonkah]

Okay i gotta ask this because it drives me crazy.

Do you guys think that 'President' Bush ever concerns himself with the future? And indeed the type of future he leaves for his family? Does he concern himself with what his future relatives will think of him in years to come?

If not for the sake of the corruption and needless waves of good american citizens being killed in action for oil fields....... thenn for the sake of the environment. Of course, America being the largest polluter and indeed the least concerned with international well being.

Im from the UK and i have to say its diabolical and a fucking discrace that that fuckwit of a man can dictate how much crap i have to inhale both here in the uk, and world wide for others. What gives him the right to decline any aknowledgement of global warming for sake of cheap fuel and energy? Why is my life and the earth its self worth less then 1 man's profits?

Im sure there are those of you who strongly disagree with my concerns, but then im also sure that those people are from the US. Smoke screen.

I appologise if i offend anyone, but these are my opinions. Thankfully we're all still free to have an opinion, well, most of us.

[Spartan]

Okay i gotta ask this because it drives me crazy.

Do you guys think that 'President' Bush ever concerns himself with the future? And indeed the type of future he leaves for his family? Does he concern himself with what his future relatives will think of him in years to come?

If not for the sake of the corruption and needless waves of good american citizens being killed in action for oil fields....... thenn for the sake of the environment. Of course, America being the largest polluter and indeed the least concerned with international well being.

Im from the UK and i have to say its diabolical and a fucking discrace that that fuckwit of a man can dictate how much crap i have to inhale both here in the uk, and world wide for others. What gives him the right to decline any aknowledgement of global warming for sake of cheap fuel and energy? Why is my life and the earth its self worth less then 1 man's profits?

Im sure there are those of you who strongly disagree with my concerns, but then im also sure that those people are from the US. Smoke screen.

I appologise if i offend anyone, but these are my opinions. Thankfully we're all still free to have an opinion, well, most of us.

Yes even the president thinks about the future.

And I don't know what you mean by the waves of deaths over oil. Last time I checked soldiers over in Iraq weren't dieing in large waves. Look at the amount U.S. soldier deaths over the past 3 years compared to the amount in 3 years in wars like Vietnam.

As for pollution I'm sure the president doesn't want to live in a world where the sun is blocked out by smog. No one does. Not even the evil business tycoons want to live in a world like that. There are also different types of pollution. If your refering to CO2 emmissions then yes the U.S. is #1. However that's just for CO2, the U.S. actually does quite well with CFC consumption, urban NO2 concentrations, and fresh water pollution.

Your also overreacting too. The president does not make every single enviromental desicion. There are countries much closer to the U.K. that are much heavier polluters.

So stop being paranoid and read some facts.

[bob@lunchbreak]

Im from the UK and i have to say its diabolical and a fucking discrace that that fuckwit of a man can dictate how much crap i have to inhale both here in the uk, and world wide for others. What gives him the right to decline any aknowledgement of global warming for sake of cheap fuel and energy? Why is my life and the earth its self worth less then 1 man's profits?

It's not just one man who profits, it's a whole economy. In fact even you have some profit, and besides global warming is far to large and complex to be caused by humans. Earth always had it's up and downs with ice ages and far more extreme climates than you could even imagine.

[5eyes]

Im from the UK and i have to say its diabolical and a fucking discrace that that fuckwit of a man can dictate how much crap i have to inhale both here in the uk, and world wide for others. What gives him the right to decline any aknowledgement of global warming for sake of cheap fuel and energy? Why is my life and the earth its self worth less then 1 man's profits?

It's not just one man who profits, it's a whole economy. In fact even you have some profit, and besides global warming is far to large and complex to be caused by humans. Earth always had it's up and downs with ice ages and far more extreme climates than you could even imagine.

I don't care enough to talk about the whole subject, but I'd love to interject the mini-Ice Age into bob's argument

1816 after a large volcano erupted the world's temperature dropped dramatically all over, and caused Europe and North America to not have a summer, which I believe it was even snowing during that "summer". This has come to be seen as a mini-Ice Age, and it also shows how Earth is suseptible to climate changes but only in large quantities of crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer,

[RSX WHEEEEEE]

at least canada has more acid rain than the U.S.

[dragonfliet]

Don't we already have a few "blahblah bush sucks" threads going? Anyways, to explain the whole global warming debate a little bit, the earth HAS been getting warmer, but it's also been uncharacteristically cool and pleasant for the last few thousand years. How would we know if this is because of our enviromental actions or because of a natural occurance in earths history? Unfortunately, we don't. We have strong reason to believe that global warming is our fault, but it's not exactly set in stone. That being said, of course I wish we were doing more.

For one, I would like to see the spiffy Hybird cars have Diesal engines to make use of the wonderful corn/soy biodiesal. Huzzah.

Otherwise, this thread is kinda dumb: does bush care? What kind of a question is that?

[ishbog]

Lets talk about global warming:

---We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.

--- Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.

--- We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year old cold spell known as the "Little Ice Age."

--- Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.

--- Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.

--- Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess --- the only thing anyone is doing, really --- I would guess the increase will be 0.812437 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else's. (We can't "assess" the future, nor can we "predict" it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. And informed guess is just a guess.)

--- I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.

--- Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.

--- I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don't know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardly perennial in human calculation.

--- There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transportation in the early twentieth century.

--- I suspect the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don't think we have to worry about them.

--- The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.

--- I conclude that most environmental "principles" (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, "We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution."

--- I believe people are will intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.

--- I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes, Ideologues and zealots don't.

--- In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970's.

--- We haven't the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term "wilderness," and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip miners. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence.

--- We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers.

--- We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily --- usually by preventing something --- with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control.

[mabufo]

Im from the UK and i have to say its diabolical and a fucking discrace that that fuckwit of a man can dictate how much crap i have to inhale both here in the uk, and world wide for others. What gives him the right to decline any aknowledgement of global warming for sake of cheap fuel and energy? Why is my life and the earth its self worth less then 1 man's profits?

What?