See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: EXCLUSIVE: Cheney on Global Warming [Cheney sez it's here, so it's official now]
Source:
ABC News
URL Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2898539&page=1
Published: Feb 23, 2007
Author: ABC
Post Date: 2007-02-23 15:23:20 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 148
Comments: 17
Sydney, Australia, Feb. 23, 2007 — In an exclusive interview today, ABC's Jonathan Karl asked Vice President Dick Cheney about the topic of global warming, a subject Mr. Cheney has rarely addressed in the past. The vice president agreed that the earth is warming but, like President Bush, maintained there is debate over whether humans or natural cycles are the cause— a position that puts the administration at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists. Vice President Dick Cheney talked about global warming in an exclusive interview today with ABC's Jonathan Karl. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — made up of thousands of scientists from around the world — reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth's atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. In Australia, for example, the IPCC said that rising ocean temperatures brought on by global warming could make Australia's Great Barrier Reef "functionally extinct" by 2050. Here is a portion of the transcript from Jonathan Karl's conversation with Mr. Cheney: JONATHAN KARL: I want to ask you about another issue that's been a subject of controversy here in Australia, global warming. Did you get a chance to see Al Gore's movie? THE VICE PRESIDENT: I have not seen Al Gore's movie. JONATHAN KARL: Doesn't surprise me. THE VICE PRESIDENT: He didn't invite me to the showing. JONATHAN KARL: The premiere, huh? THE VICE PRESIDENT: Not that I had planned to go anyway. JONATHAN KARL: But what's your sense, where is the science on this? Is global warming a fact? And is it human activity that is causing global warming? THE VICE PRESIDENT: Those are the two key questions. I think there's an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we're in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that's part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera. But I think we're going to see a big debate on it going forward. But it's not enough just to sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that's going to "solve" the problem. Kyoto I think was not a good idea — 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#2. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
By the way. Were you banned formally at El Pee or was it something less than that?
I just noticed a few minutes ago that I got suspended. It was quite bizarre. Goldi first removed my (needed) editorial comment to the title - not that the blogs entry have titles per se. Then, I think she banned my account. Then, she re-instated my account but she deleted the article. Then, one day later, she got my account suspended. It's not that important even though I do respect Goldi's struggle to stay fair.
I think there are some here who doubt her "fairness", avrwc.
I didn't say that she is always fair. I said that I resepct her STRUGGLE to be that way. She clearly does try, pretty hard.
That wasn't my experience, but to each his own. Of course, I was never formally banned. I quit that site when I saw a stack of completely unfair banning.
You do agree that Goldi does tolerate the expression of views that are quite different from hers. Don't you?
Erm... No. I would acknowledge a greater range of expression is "tolerated" over there than, say, Freak republik or Demoncratic Undervorld, but when push comes to shove and one of her personal areas of concern comes into play, she's just as quick with the knife as Rimjob.
You think so? I constantly express views that she would probably classify as 'anti-semitic' and I don't remember when it was last time I had something good or even indifferent to say on the topics of Israel, George Bush, AIPAC, Zionism or the Republican party. And... I really don't care if I am banned at a web site or not so I can't have that Stockholm syndrome. It's fun and entertaining to post views there but it's quite inconsequential.
The problem I have with El pee is that it holds itself out to be something it isn't; that is, a free speech zone. I don't mind the brutal exchanges, even with idiots, so long as it really is a free for all. I can pretty much hold my own. But when a post is pulled with neither explanation given nor any opportunity to protest the pulling, the impression is made that no response was given or that the poster just walked away. Aside from that, however, if it's an intellectual free for all, then any view should be okay and if it is wrong, debate is more likely to find the truth than suppression. That Goldi bans anyone based on their politics while holding herself out to be "a champion of free speech" is base hypocracy, and it doesn't matter if it only happens once or five times a day.
There are no replies to Comment # 15. End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
#5. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, leveller, aristeides (#3)
It's not that important even though I do respect Goldi's struggle to stay fair.
#6. To: bluedogtxn (#5)
#8. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#6)
She clearly does try, pretty hard.
#10. To: bluedogtxn (#8)
#12. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#10)
You do agree that Goldi does tolerate the expression of views that are quite different from hers. Don't you?
#14. To: bluedogtxn (#12)
#15. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#14)
Replies to Comment # 15.