Dick Cheney on global warming

JaJae · 02-23-2007, 08:50 PM

First, I'd like to point out the image they used for this story:

This is something you would expect a biased blog to do, not a reputable news source.
ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Cheney on Global Warming
Also note the subtitle: Vice President's Views At Odds With Majority Of Climate Scientists

The presentation of this is no less than I would expect from any major news network on the issue of Global Warming.

EXCLUSIVE: Cheney on Global Warming
Vice President's Views At Odds With Majority Of Climate Scientists

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.

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 -- not adequate to task. It didn't cover nations like China or India. It would have done serious damage to our economy. We decided not to go down that road. The Senate had rejected it overwhelmingly anyway.

But what we're doing with research, we're spending more money on research than anybody else, probably the rest of the world combined in this area. We've set targets for ourselves in terms of increasing energy efficiency, that is reducing the amount of energy per unit of output. And we're doing better at meeting those targets than I think virtually anybody who signed up with Kyoto. Most of the folks who signed up with Kyoto are not going to meet the targets.

But going forward, if we are going to have a policy, we've got to find ways to do that are not inconsistent with economic growth. You can't shut down the world economy in the name of trying to eliminate greenhouse gases. But there are some answers out there -- nuclear power, for example, is one of them. And getting the United States back into the nuclear power game I think would be a significant benefit -- both in terms of producing the energy we need, but at the same time not contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

JONATHAN KARL: So you think the jury is still out about whether or not this warming we're seeing has been caused by human activity?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Some of it has, I think. But exactly where you draw the line? I don't know. I'm not a scientist. I talk with people who supposedly know something about it. You get conflicting viewpoints. But I do think it is an important subject, and it will be addressed in the Congress. I think there will be a big debate on it in the next couple of years.

Interestingly enough I agree with Cheney. Maybe that makes me a crazy right-wing conservative paid by the oil companies, but I agree with the man. Kyoto was a bad idea. We need to move towards nuclear power. Global warming is real, the extent of which humans have an effect is debatable, yet we should move towards energy efficiency without crippling our economy.

What's so bad about that? Cheney hasn't really said much about Global Warming during his term as vice president. I think his views are rational on a subject that rarely gets rational coverage or expressed opinion. I commend him for bringing up nuclear power and saying it's something that will help us produce the power we need and restrict some of the greenhouse emissions.

If only more politicians would have such a level headed mind on this issue.

motivez · 02-23-2007, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Also note the subtitle: Vice President's Views At Odds With Majority Of Climate Scientists

A factually correct statement. What's your beef about that?

As far as the "Doesn't surprise me", eh, I didn't take that as any kind of jab.

JaJae · 02-23-2007, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

A factually correct statement. What's your beef about that?

As far as the "Doesn't surprise me", eh, I didn't take that as any kind of jab.

I agree it's factual. My beef isn't with the statement, my beef is with the entire direction of the article. Even the interviewer's comment of "Doesn't surprise me."

Between the picture, the title and the quirk response at the beginning of the interview they're trying to demonize Cheney and his view. They're framing the article against Cheney.

motivez · 02-23-2007, 09:22 PM

I see nothing wrong with the "Doesn't surprise me" comment, you seem to be taking it wrong. If it had been inappropriate like you're suggesting I'm sure there would have been something else besides the rest of the cordial interview.

And, well, the rest of the scientific community that hasn't been paid off by the energy industry tend to agree on the subject of global warming, so as long as there's scientific consensus, people on the edge of it should be positioned that way in the media because it's the truth

If he turns out to be correct, well, good for him

Not that Cheney is any kind of Galileo, but they didn't believe him at first either.

Donkey® · 02-23-2007, 11:24 PM

So I am guessing you have a problem with Fox using less than stellar pics of Sheehan when they write about how "crazy" she is, correct? You seem to be on a roll pointing out the "large bias" in news networks recently. I would like to know who you think isn't biased or guilty of this type of extravagance?

JaJae · 02-23-2007, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So I am guessing you have a problem with Fox using less than stellar pics of Sheehan when they write about how "crazy" she is, correct? You seem to be on a roll pointing out the "large bias" in news networks recently. I would like to know who you think isn't biased or guilty of this type of extravagance?

Sheehan purposely dresses frumpy with no makeup. But yes, I would have a problem with posting a picture of Pelosi or Murtha like the blogs do:

But they typically don't do that. The entire article seems overly critical of Cheney right from the get-go.

Donkey® · 02-23-2007, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Sheehan purposely dresses frumpy with no makeup. But yes, I would have a problem with posting a picture of Pelosi or Murtha like the blogs do:

But they typically don't do that. The entire article seems overly critical of Cheney right from the get-go.

Ok...so like I asked...who doesn't do this type of stuff?

JaJae · 02-23-2007, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Ok...so like I asked...who doesn't do this type of stuff?

All biased networks slip at times. And just about all mainstream media outlets are faily biased in my opinion from Fox to CNN to NBC, etc. Just because all the outlets may be biased and do things that show their bias doesn't mean it isn't worthy of noting when it happens....

You can say "look Fox did it here too." And I'll say "ok they're wrong, ... too." If Fox writes a story about Obama criticizing Cheney (as they have done on their main page) and they use a picture of him that makes him look like an asshat, while putting a title in that makes him sound like an asshat, I'm gonna have to say it's showing a bias. Many people think Cheney and his ideals are stupid, but that doesn't mean a media outlet is supposed to portray that in their articles the same as Fox shouldn't of liberals.

When you read the interview and Cheney's views on global warming, his views are fairly moderate. He says there is global warming, humans are partly to blame he just doesn't know how much and the science isn't conclusive (which is true). On top of that he's against shutting down the world economy over greenhouse gases. What's so crazy about that? Are they implying the majority of the world's scientists want to shut down the world economy to fight greenhouse gases? Where exactly does he disagree so heavily with them? He says he thinks some of the global warming is caused by humans at the end.. does he not? He says there is consensus on global warming, but there isn't on the amount you can attribute to humans. That's not correct? Even the people saying humans are playing an active role are saying it's at varying degrees.

Really all he's said is:
Global warming is happening. He thinks it's partly caused by man, but not sure how much and the experts can't agree on that. A solution he believes involves nuclear power and being delicate to the world economy until we know more. Until then there's going to be a lot of debate and Congress will be working on it. What's so crazy right wing psycho about what he said to where that image and title are necessary?

Just because he didn't say "the world is going to end due to global warming unless we cripple the world economy" doesn't mean it's necessarily correct to portray him in the light they have after this interview. It seems that's the only "correct" answer for the media these days on global warming.

Thorgrim · 02-25-2007, 10:36 PM

Just a few years ago all these guys were saying GW is a hoax, in fact there are still GOP senators who say it is a hoax

how can you trust people who continually change their opinion on SCIENCE?

It's like "alright alright, the earth isn't flat...but evolution...cmon?"

I remember thewise1 doing something similiar on OT, he said "Some people believe the world is 5,000 years old, others billions of years, I don't believe either extremes"

Just because you are on the other end of the argument doesn't make you wrong, and going down the middle doesn't make you a moderate