What is on my mind? Is the article "Speaking Truth to Power on Climate Change: Why the U.S. Report Leaked" by Mr John H Cushman Jr.
In my humble opinion "Something is rotten in Denmark!" Or should I say the "Swamp" in Washington DC?
It is my humble opinion that climate change, which effects us all should be a "Bi-partisan" issue.
So is this article revealing to us the truth?
Why is it that the story is worded to incite more rage and anti-Trump hatred? Which those in the anti-Trump camp have so lovingly expressed.
Pay heed to this quote: "There have, after all, been cases where that happened in past Republican administrations" Here we see the writer is expressing an aversion for the political parties and there previous difference in points of view.
Consider this if you may:
"An early draft was released for public comment a month before President Obama left office." Okay.....
So this brings up the question that "IF" it were, "released for public comment" and it was done "a month before President Obama left office."
Why wasn't there any statement or interest expressed by President Obama or any member of his administration since "They -the Democrats" are so concerned about "Climate Change". And why did the New York Times correspondent question this?
It also brings up the even more serious question that since Hillary Clinton was seen as a "shoo in" - certain winner in the last election, why she or any member of HER Democratic Presidential Team failed to speak up when the initial report was published? ESPECIALLY since the issue of Climate Change IS a major concern of the Democratic Party?
The writer of the article goes on to state that: "It was reviewed in detail by an expert panel at the National Academy of Sciences, the gold standard for peer review, which gave its imprimatur in April." Nu? that was months ago so why the wait to bang the drum?
The writer of the article Mr John H Cushman Jr. states:
"Would the Trump Administration deep-six the report? Some scientists involved in the process reportedly were worried about that."
"There have, after all, been cases where that happened in past Republican administrations" So since it is by his own admission to be a Partisan issue why is it so surprising to him, that the "Republicans" whom he may remember DO NOT exactly have a deep love for President Trump, may "dump the report?"
"Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that "federal scientists'(?) concerns that the administration will try to change or suppress this report are well-founded." What is his concern founded on?
"The Trump administration has consistently demonstrated its lack of regard for science and evidence, including on climate change." Let us note here ladies and gentlemen that the "Trump administration" began on January 20th of this year a mere eight months into a four year term so how can one use the term "consistently"?
"So someone arranged to get it published on the website of The New York Times—a leak that broke protocol" Gee our favorite "We Hate Trump Newspaper. And like there isn't enough HATRED in America at this moment that someone has to fill up the can of gasoline to fan the flames.
Gotta love this statement of Cushman's-"Publication of the third draft, since it had long been available, didn't constitute a leak. But publication of the fifth and final draft did," Eh Tu Brute?
So where is the Times questioning as I mentioned of President Obama and Hillary Clinton's silence?
So in conclusion the main point:
"Even so, the publication of this fifth edition lays down a marker. It would be hard, for example, for any revisionist to try to undo the EPA's landmark "endangerment finding" that underpins regulations of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act without taking into account the findings that are so completely laid out here."
That the Republican Senators and the members of the house may be in Big Oils pocket is NO surprise to anyone but WHAT is the surprise is WHY the Democrats are only now showing concern? Why wasn't it a campaign issue then BEFORE the Elections "IF" it was "SO" important?
And yes boys and girls we ARE in deep with Climate issues and YES we the people of the world -that means ALL of us those who want to "Make America Great Again" and those who hate for the sake of hating- need to make changes for our children and grandchildren's sake's.
In my humble opinion "Something is rotten in Denmark!" Or should I say the "Swamp" in Washington DC?
It is my humble opinion that climate change, which effects us all should be a "Bi-partisan" issue.
So is this article revealing to us the truth?
Why is it that the story is worded to incite more rage and anti-Trump hatred? Which those in the anti-Trump camp have so lovingly expressed.
Pay heed to this quote: "There have, after all, been cases where that happened in past Republican administrations" Here we see the writer is expressing an aversion for the political parties and there previous difference in points of view.
Consider this if you may:
"An early draft was released for public comment a month before President Obama left office." Okay.....
So this brings up the question that "IF" it were, "released for public comment" and it was done "a month before President Obama left office."
Why wasn't there any statement or interest expressed by President Obama or any member of his administration since "They -the Democrats" are so concerned about "Climate Change". And why did the New York Times correspondent question this?
It also brings up the even more serious question that since Hillary Clinton was seen as a "shoo in" - certain winner in the last election, why she or any member of HER Democratic Presidential Team failed to speak up when the initial report was published? ESPECIALLY since the issue of Climate Change IS a major concern of the Democratic Party?
The writer of the article goes on to state that: "It was reviewed in detail by an expert panel at the National Academy of Sciences, the gold standard for peer review, which gave its imprimatur in April." Nu? that was months ago so why the wait to bang the drum?
The writer of the article Mr John H Cushman Jr. states:
"Would the Trump Administration deep-six the report? Some scientists involved in the process reportedly were worried about that."
"There have, after all, been cases where that happened in past Republican administrations" So since it is by his own admission to be a Partisan issue why is it so surprising to him, that the "Republicans" whom he may remember DO NOT exactly have a deep love for President Trump, may "dump the report?"
"Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that "federal scientists'(?) concerns that the administration will try to change or suppress this report are well-founded." What is his concern founded on?
"The Trump administration has consistently demonstrated its lack of regard for science and evidence, including on climate change." Let us note here ladies and gentlemen that the "Trump administration" began on January 20th of this year a mere eight months into a four year term so how can one use the term "consistently"?
"So someone arranged to get it published on the website of The New York Times—a leak that broke protocol" Gee our favorite "We Hate Trump Newspaper. And like there isn't enough HATRED in America at this moment that someone has to fill up the can of gasoline to fan the flames.
Gotta love this statement of Cushman's-"Publication of the third draft, since it had long been available, didn't constitute a leak. But publication of the fifth and final draft did," Eh Tu Brute?
So where is the Times questioning as I mentioned of President Obama and Hillary Clinton's silence?
So in conclusion the main point:
"Even so, the publication of this fifth edition lays down a marker. It would be hard, for example, for any revisionist to try to undo the EPA's landmark "endangerment finding" that underpins regulations of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act without taking into account the findings that are so completely laid out here."
That the Republican Senators and the members of the house may be in Big Oils pocket is NO surprise to anyone but WHAT is the surprise is WHY the Democrats are only now showing concern? Why wasn't it a campaign issue then BEFORE the Elections "IF" it was "SO" important?
And yes boys and girls we ARE in deep with Climate issues and YES we the people of the world -that means ALL of us those who want to "Make America Great Again" and those who hate for the sake of hating- need to make changes for our children and grandchildren's sake's.
