Well, assuming that he's right (which he probably isn't since he never is), what the hell difference does it make? Isn't he wrecking the economy, anyway? Or did he just want to do it on his own terms? And isn't the economy going to be a pretty moot point if the world gets wrecked instead?
"I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto," Bush told the Danish Broadcasting Corp., noting that the treaty did not include other nations — including India and China — that he called "big polluters."
Yeah, and the US is a big polluter too, moron. So, good job setting an example and trying to encourage those other countries to follow our lead.
He also says more study is needed to determine whether human activity is primarily to blame for rising temperatures.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. So, what if you do more study, and research it for 100 years, and then it comes back, that yep, it was human activity all along, but now, unfortunately, it's too late to do anything about it. On the other hand, if we go ahead and try to make changes now, and then it turns out that we didn't really need to, we haven't really lost anything. That is, of course, assuming that you're stupid enough to believe that it actually does require more study, which it pretty clearly doesn't. Common sense will tell you that the emissions we produce can only do bad things to the world. I guess this is the kind of shit we get when the President is fighting a War on Science. At least in that one, he seems to be having success, unlike in the War on Terror. Unfortunately, I'm rooting for science in this one.