Jeb Bush skeptical about global warming: 'Climate change advocates acting from religious zeal...'

[seafan]

Jeb Bush skeptical about global warming

By DAVID KOENIG
Associated Press Writer

April 23, 2008

DALLAS (AP) -- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says he is "light green" on the environment and is skeptical that humans are causing global warming.
Bush, whose two terms ended in 2007, also said Wednesday he "can't imagine" running for national office and isn't interested in being Sen. John McCain's running mate.

The younger brother of President George W. Bush made the comments during an address to several hundred business people meeting in a hotel ballroom. Earlier in the day, Bush met with other directors of Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare Corp., the hospital chain whose board he joined last year.

As governor, Bush, a Republican, was largely silent on global warming. His successor, Charlie Crist - who is often mentioned as a possible GOP running mate for McCain - has said Florida should become a leader in addressing climate change because its low elevation makes it vulnerable if ocean levels rise.

Bush said those who advocate action to limit climate change are acting out of something like religious zeal.
"I don't think our policies should be based on emotion; they should be based on sound science," he said.
Rather than reducing oil consumption, Bush said the United States should focus on "energy security" - reducing dependence on oil imported from hostile or politically unstable countries by encouraging alternative fuels.

Bush said he isn't thinking of running for national office and said he only wanted to be governor.

"I loved every minute of it, and when I finished, I finished," he said. "I don't have any burning ambitions" beyond his foundation, which advocates education testing.

.....

Jeb obviously considers his actions in the Terri Schiavo case, foisted on Floridians for crass political purposes, to be *above* the accusation of religious zealotry.





Jeb is a dinosaur on global climate change, and Governor Crist is getting all the attention for his moderate and concerned stance on it. Jeb is not happy about the young upstart in the Governor's mansion.


Jeb's idea of "energy security" is not reducing consumption. Oh no. It's the hostile takeovers of smaller, oil-rich countries, so the energy flow to Jeb's cronies' yachts, Gulfstreams and Bentleys continues unabated.


While Jeb proclaims that when he left the governorship, he 'stepped back', and was 'learning to let go' of power. Yet, from behind the scenes now, he has orchestrated an obscure Taxation and Budget Reform Commission to force his religious school vouchers onto the ballot in November, to enshrine them into our state constitution. He accomplished this by stacking the commission with his right wing ideologues before he left office. (For instance, Patricia Levesque, his former Deputy Chief of Staff for Education, who is now Executive Director for Jeb's Foundation For Florida's Future.) This commission has muddied up the ballot language just enough to trick voters into voting their way. Church and state separation means nothing to Jeb Bush.


But Jeb really never left. He is just behind the curtain offstage, directing his apprentice Marco Rubio and other operatives to force his **education legacy** into permanence.



You see, it does not matter if Jeb is in or out of office. He can force his will on us from a secret hideout behind the public stage. AND, he siphons money through lucrative board seats at Tenet Health Care, Lehman Brothers, CNL BancShares, and any other corporate welfare he can suckle.



When Jeb claims he's "finished", he's just getting started.



And, Jeb also says, "We need to kill gators."

April 23, 2008

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Wednesday took a swipe at one of the state's most famous symbols, the alligator.

He told a group in Dallas of how he repeatedly vetoed spending state money to market alligator meat.

"Alligators proliferate in Florida. They eat small dogs," Bush said. "We don't need to market them, we need to kill them."

After a slight pause, he added, "Is this open to the press?"

Just a screaming nightmare.

[navarth]

1. You had to mention Jeb Bu$h

I'm tryin' to eat here.

[seafan]

2. Sorry; here's one from "the good old days."

It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

[flvegan]

3. I was just about to post this.

Shocking news, this is. Jeb Bush, still an idiot.

[MidwestTransplant]

4. Jeb Bush in 2012 "Not like I could be any worse"

[Radical Activist]

5. Extreme fundamentalist churches say global warming is an athiest plot.

Its clear where they religious zealotry is coming from and who is ignoring science. This Republican tactic of accusing others of your own worst faults is getting old.

[awoke_in_2003]

28. It is all a grand scheme

we atheists have to conquer the world :)

[orangerevolution]

6. Are the terms inter-changeable?

Global Warming and Climate change?

I remember back in the 70's, everyone was worried about the coming ice age as it was colder than normal.

Which is it?

[navarth]

11. heh?

I was around in the 70's and I never heard anyone mention that.

[orangerevolution]

23. You must not have gotten out much back then

Newsweek
The Cooling World
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975


There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras — and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 — years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases — all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

[navarth]

26. You're right! I just stayed in my little cave.

I repeat, I didn't hear anyone talking about this in the 70's. Full disclosure: I wasn't especially looking for any info about this sort of thing back then.

But imagine someone today with a similar disposition, not especially looking for that kind of info. They'd still hear a lot about the threat of global warming. See the difference?

Maybe you heard a lot about it back then. I didn't. I see a Newsweek article here. That's fine, but it doesn't tell me everyone was talking about it. That's all I'm saying. Want to get snippy about it? I can't stop you, best of luck.

[wuushew]

12. No, the Earth is definately getting warmer

[NoGOPZone]

15. Everyone? There was never a consensus in the 70s that the world was getting colder

How many recent articles in science journals deny the world is getting warmer?

[orangerevolution]

16. I remember it on the cover of magazines

talking about the coming ice age.

If there wasn't a concesus then, at least everyone agreed on what to call it.

Today, I don't know if I should call it global warming or climate change. Just for this fact alone it would seem there is not a consensus.

Last year it was warmer sooner in the year, this year same time period, it is very mild and pleasant.

Maybe it should be climate change so we can hedge our bets on the unpredictability of weather.

Back then, we would get mad at the weatherman when he predicted sunny weather for the weekend and it rained.

[SalviaBlue]

18. Watch an Inconvenient Truth

if you are interested in the truth.

[orangerevolution]

20. I did, but then read

about a NASA long term temperature study that was revised because the data was incorrect. The new data showed that what was once believed about the planet getting warmer had been incorrect.

So, global warming or climate change, what is the correct term?

No one has yet to answer this question.

[NoGOPZone]

21. The Wiki has good articles on both topics

read them and you'll understand the difference.

[NoGOPZone]

19. Maybe then

you should get your science news from the aforementioned journals and not popular magazines.

As for your observation of when the warmer weather came this year as opposed to last, realize that we're talking about how things have changed over a century, not two years.

[PVnRT]

22. That was based on ONE paper

The media ran with it because it was sensational. The authors were soon after shown to be wrong, but that never made the press (of course).

[orangerevolution]

24. Do you think history will repeat itself? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. The world must be a very confusing place

... if your science education is limited to the cover of popular magazines.

[spanone]

7. jeb aspires to be as ignorant as his brother....hard row to hoe

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Jeb who?

Little brothers never die. They just fade away.

[lpbk2713]

9. Bighead Jeb is the last to learn he's just not relevant any more.

That whole Boosh clan has a taint about it thanks mainly to his simian sibling.

People are leaving the rethuglican party in droves. :rofl:

[Johonny]

10. they should be based on sound science

What sound science is Jeb basing his skepticism on? Because there isn't ah much to look at these days. I guess he's stuck in 1985.

[hatrack]

13. And you know what, Jeb?

You're STILL never, ever, EVER going to be president!!! I'm zealously certain of that!

The Chimp screwed the pooch for you and your family and he did so for all time.

You may as well be named Jeb Hitler, or Jeb Khomeni, or Jeb Dahmer.

From this point forward in American political history, "Bush" = "Shit".

Enjoy!

[seafan]

14. LOL. In this case, even recycled $#!* ain't the answer. Thanks, hatrack. n/t

[bemildred]

17. Heck, I thought Jeb liked religion. nt

[tofurkey]

25. Jeb also thinks his brother is the greatest president ever

'Nuff said...

[El Pinko]

29. Jeb Bush is undoubtedly an asshole, but he's at least partly correct on this.

I find discussing climate change with people here very frustrating because of the exact religious zeal that climate-change believers have on the subject.

That's not to say I'm claiming that climate change isn't happening, or that I don't think humanity is having an effect.

But there are so many posters here who are CERTAIN that we will see 10 meters or more of sea level rise by the end of century, when that is anything BUT a certainty, and any climate scientist will tell you that the climate-change models are just that - models based on limited data and conjecture.

When anyone here raises doubt or posts evidence that contradicts the standard climate change view, posters jump all over it and accuse the poster of all but being a freeper.



Personally, I'm concerned by the temperature trend, and I think there is enough evidence that it is CO2 driven that we REALLY should all have been driving 35+ mpg cars years ago, and that should have been enforced by law. I think every home and apartment building should be equipped with solar panels - the money we squandered on the Iraq war could have paid for that. I'm for increased use of all renewable energy and we should be shooting for 95% recycling of all consumer goods. I would believe in all of these things regardless of th climate situation, because they are CRUCIAL to leaving behind a livable earth for our kids.

But I have not INVESTED MY FAITH in the notion that the earth is going to be 6 degrees warmer in 10 years and that the oceans are going to engulf everything below 3 meters in my lifetime. That's not to say that it cannot happen, but every climate scientist will in all honesty tell you that the climate models are at best estimates, and NONE of them will go out on a limb and say that any of the scenarios are 100% certain.

So why is it that climate scientists can be sober and rational about the subject, but posters here tend to be so fanatical? I would have to say it is like religious faith. They are scientific laypeople, like myself, with only a passing understanding of the myriad of variables involved in climatology and climate prediction modeling. They've seen "Inconvenient Truth" and gained a bit more insight and taken Gore's pronouncements as absolute truth. Every news story that confirms the scenario "Pacific Islands soon to be inundated" - confirms their belief in the prophecy. Never mind that the tiny coral atoll nation of Tuvalu's maximum elevation is 5 feet above sea level, and that they have always been subject to extremely high tides called King Tides - it's heralded as the first sign that "Climate change is taking its toll"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise


The problem is further compounded because there ARE people on the right who seek to create confusion about climate change - with stories of record cold temperatures and low sunspot activity cited to show that we are entering a cool period. Of course, their aim is to see to it that enough people are convinced to delay any meaningful change to the present fossil-fuel economy.


So I guess I fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I am not CONVINCED that this or that is absolutely GOING to happen. I'm concerned and watching developments closely, and will continue to support any and all government efforts to massively increase investment in renewable resources, and the eventual phasing out of fossil fuels as our major economic drivers. But I would not support any abrupt interruption that would stall economic growth and cause worldwide hunger to increase. And I'm not going to run around like a chicken with its head cut off because it was 80 degrees in Central Park in March or because there were FIVE ATLANTIC HURRICANES in a year! Extreme weather is NOT new. Extreme weather has been the norm for as long as people have walked the earth. A lack of extreme weather would surprise me more.

Anyway, I said my peace, and now the true believers can have at it...