Don't like the truth - ignore it

[gsdx]

^ We posted at the same time. My response is above yours.

I see you knew what you had said. Whether or not you will admit that it was intended as a put-down is another thing.

I won't admit that it was intended as a put-down, because it wasn't. It was one of those things which comes across differently in print than in voice. If it was taken as a 'put-down', then I shall sincerely apologize if that's the way it came out, but it most certainly wasn't meant to be.

 

[GL]

How old is Bush? I was born in 1951 and I have seen the climate change drastically over the last half-century. How can he not have seen it, too? And how (or 'why') can he be so in denial about it and fight it so strongly?

We're killing this planet, but, take my word for it, the planet will kill us first!

If my memory is correct, Bush made his fortune in oil and gas.

He's not about to throw a wrench in the works by letting scientists and their findings harm Big Oil. Especially if what they report is the truth.

 

[mike_n_herrin]

the problem i see here with his new rule making is that it's agency folks that are reviewing the data. to be unbiased it should be an outside peer review team. like what occurs when someone wants to publish in a journal. the USGS is our research branch of the department of interior and so most of what they put out is research based. I think it's a good idea it be reviewed but i'm not sure that it doesn't already get that.

Doesn't sound as harmless as just ignoring the truth to me.

More like suppressing the truth.

Yet as everyone knows, the planet goes through its own long natural cycles. We may still be coming out of an ice age. The question is how much of global climate change can be directly attributed to us, and how much is natural and inevitable?

that true that we go in cycles, but our CO2 cycle now is WAY more than it's been.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming