WASHINGTON (AP) -- Revising his stance on global warming, President Bush will propose a new target for stopping the growth of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

 

 

President Bush is expected to call for slowing emissions from electric power plants.

 

The president also will call for putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants within 10 to 15 years, according to a senior administration official familiar with the speech Bush will deliver Wednesday afternoon in the Rose Garden.

 

LINK

This is great news for Al Gore's investors.

 

Global temperatures have been dropping since 1998. Maybe when temperatures start to climb again, the next president will inexplicably revert to a more sane energy policy.

 

Decisions like this lead me to wonder what kind of post-retirement bonuses our past (and current) presidents have negotiated for themselves. It will be interesting to see where and from whom Bush collects large speaking fees after he leaves office.

If he wants to believe this mumbo-jumbo and "make a call to end it" then be my guest.

 

But if he starts putting regulations on industries and more laws, I might just be as mad at RTS!

This is great news for Al Gore's investors.

 

Global temperatures have been dropping since 1998. Maybe when temperatures start to climb again, the next president will inexplicably revert to a more sane energy policy.

 

Decisions like this lead me to wonder what kind of post-retirement bonuses our past (and current) presidents have negotiated for themselves. It will be interesting to see where and from whom Bush collects large speaking fees after he leaves office.

 

So since they have decreased in the last 10 years, we should completely ignore how much the temperatures increased in the 50+ years before that? Maybe if they're actually decreasing, it would not be a bad idea to start trying to prevent them from increasing again.

This is great news for Al Gore's investors.

 

Global temperatures have been dropping since 1998. Maybe when temperatures start to climb again, the next president will inexplicably revert to a more sane energy policy.

 

Decisions like this lead me to wonder what kind of post-retirement bonuses our past (and current) presidents have negotiated for themselves. It will be interesting to see where and from whom Bush collects large speaking fees after he leaves office.

 

Can I see the data?

I was playing around with this, and maybe I am doing it wrong, but it looks to me like temperatures today and in 2007 are higher than 98 and 99.

Global average temperatures have risen since the mid-twentieth century, yet temperature changes aren't always apparent in day-to-day weather variability. Now researchers have found that daily extremes may also be changing.

 

hotter days ahead?

So since they have decreased in the last 10 years, we should completely ignore how much the temperatures increased in the 50+ years before that? Maybe if they're actually decreasing, it would not be a bad idea to start trying to prevent them from increasing again.

Temperatures rise and fall in cycles. The recent drops have nearly offset the increases that were recorded over the past century.

 

The world has been much hotter in the past and it has been much cooler in the past. In the future, the world will be much hotter at times and it will be much cooler at other times and there is nothing that man can do with current technology to change that pattern.

 

I do not agree with the "do something even if it is wrong" school of thought. The people who are still pushing the anthrocentric global warming are doing so for mainly for political and financial gain because if they were looking at real world data instead of theoretical models that did not predict the current cooling trend, then they could not continue making such ridiculous predictions with straight faces.

 

If Bush believes global warming is a real threat then that is plain sad. If he is only claiming to buy into Al Gore's agenda for political reasons, then that is even worse.

 

This is a great day for China and other large polluters with emerging economies.

Recent analyses of temperature trends in the lower to mid troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) using both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show warming rates that are similar to those observed for surface air temperatures. These warming rates are consistent with their uncertainties and these analyses reconcile a discrepancy between warming rates noted on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1).

 

link

Global Warming is as real as Gravity. The question that needs to be answered is how much human beings negativley affect the enviroment, and what can be done to rectify that. We have plenty of evidence that humans are responsible for some aspects of climate change.

By 2005 glaciologists had gathered enough evidence to demonstrate that most of the world's glaciers were in retreat. Glaciers that had existed since the last ice age were melting back, revealing mummies that had been frozen for thousands of years. The changes in the Alps, in Glacier National Park in the United States, and on Mount Kilimanjaro made a particularly strong impression on the public. Scientists were more impressed by surveys showing that tropical glaciers had not been so warm for thousands of years.(47)

 

Three scientists, combining a variety of measures, put estimated Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past ten centuries into a graph that showed a sharp turn upward since the start of the industrial revolution. The temperatures of the 1990s soared off the chart. Apparently 1998 had been not just the warmest year of the century, but of the millennium. The graph (shown below) was widely reprinted and made a strong impression. It was dubbed the "hockey stick."

 

As of this writing, the warmest year in a record going back to 1861 was still 1998. (In retrospect it was seen that in 1998 a "super El Niño" event, the strongest of the century, had pumped some heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere.) The year 2005 tied 1998. All the other years since 2000 were also hotter than any previous years on record.

 

link

Recent analyses of temperature trends in the lower to mid troposphere (bet

ween about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) using both satellite and radiosonde

(weather balloon) data show warming rates that are similar to those observed for surface air temperatures. These warming rates are consistent with their uncertainties and these analyses reconcile a discrepancy between warming rates noted on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1).

 

link

 

As RTS so graciously informed us quite a few months ago, the NCDC is, in some ways, feeding us a load of you know what:

Not only did sites fail to meet the NCDC's requirements, but encroaching development had put many in ridiculously unsuitable locations -- on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills.

First of all, I don't know if global warming is man-made or not. I know it can (potentially) be as potent as abortion and gay marriage are in terms of getting votes out of people. I also know that a lot of its supporters regularly ignore any global warming critics when writing articles and such.

 

Secondly, I believe that it is my moral duty to protect God's Earth. Any attempt at individual conservation, IMO, should be our obligation. So I have no problem with trying to save energy, gas, food, etc.

 

Thirdly, there needs to be much, much, much more research in order for the government to start jumping the gun and killing sectors of the economy.

 

Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, should know something on this subject. Here is a great op-ed that he wrote.

As RTS so graciously informed us quite a few months ago, the NCDC is, in some ways, feeding us a load of you know what:

 

 

And what about the American Institute of Physics? Are they biased too? I suppose the ones discrediting global warming have zero biases.

Can I see the data?