Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
At 12:25 AM 7/31/2005, Leigh, you wrote:acterized this situation as being too
Richard Hake writes:scientific> > understanding on climate change based largely on
According to the "What's New" newsletter of 29 Jul 2005 from the
National Academies:
"At two recent Senate hearings, National Academy of Sciences
President Ralph J. Cicerone discussed the current state of
findings of recent
studies by the National Academies."
I read Cicerone's testimony, and I have been interested in the
science and politics of climate change for some years. In my opinion
Cicerone responsibly presents the situation by frequently
intercalating caveats emphasizing the uncertainty of climate
scientists regarding many issues of importance to a government policy
maker. George W. Bush char
uncertain to act upon, and did not choose to join the now defunct///
Kyoto Treaty. He deserves to be recognized as having made a correct
decision in this matter. I only wish my own government (Canada) had
acted as wisely.
Leigh
Bush is currently acknowledging the human contribution to global
warmingaccording to AP reports.
He rejected Kyoto as damaging to the US economy, but is involved in an
effort to weld several third world countries (India, China etc.)
and the US into a voluntary pact to limit emissions. The US is said to
represent a quarter of the world-wide loading of emissions of
interest, and so his effort, if belated, is still welcome.