I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate. It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline.So much is wrong with the response, it's difficult to know where to begin. The "worthy debate" he claims exists -- about whether warming is anthropogenic or not -- is precisely the one we have a consensus on. Not only is the planet warming, but the trend is driven mostly by human-caused emissions. Bush then unwittingly concedes as much with his (bizarre, preposterous, delusional -- you choose the adjective) proposition that he is "solving" the problem by promoting cleaner energy alternatives. If warming were natural, after all, then energy (clean or otherwise) would have nothing to do with it.
As if this weren't enough confusion for one utterance, Bush compounds his mistakes by touting "clean coal" as part of his plan. Sorry Mr. President, no matter how cleanly you burn coal, you still have significant carbon dioxide emissions to contend with. As for ethanol, it is far more problematic than simply raising fuel efficiency standards -- something which would help curb global warming and address our national oil addiction. Bush, however, has shown no willingness to do so.
Not long ago, the president made it clear who was in charge in America. Defending his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, from critics within the military, he told reporters at a press conference, "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best." Now he tells People that, in addition to being the decider, he is also the solver. But here's the question: If he doesn't understand the problem, then what exactly does he think he's solving? Riddle me that.