Bush versus Science

The New York Times continues to follow the climate change talks in Bali. Currently the United States and the European Union remain at odds. The EU wants to commit to definite cuts in emissions and set actual targets, while the United States does not believe in the necessity of specified abatements. The talks in Bali involve renegotiating Kyoto, discussing possible new emission cuts, and creating a framework and time for a new Kyoto. A possible scheduled year is 2009 for new Kyoto-like talks.

Picking 2009 as a date for the "new" Kyoto is no coincidence. Climate change advocates are specifically waiting for Bush to leave office. They will not even have to worry if another Republican becomes president, since most have some sort of plan to take on climate change as specified in a previous post. Ban Ki moon, the secretary General of the United Nations said, "the situation is so desperately serious that any delay could push us past the tipping point, beyond which the ecological, financial and human costs would increase dramatically.” Stavros Dimas, the EU's environmental commissioner asserted , “logic requires that we listen to the science.” “I would expect others to follow that logic.” Obviously Bush is not listening to the hard facts of science which is absolutely laughable. Maybe our president should go see An Inconvenient Truth, although I doubt this will happen anytime soon. To avoid science is to profess ignorance.