Here is a letter I have just emailed to the Register regarding the "Global Warming adaptation" article of last week.
______________________________
Dear Editor,
Last week you published an excerpt from a N.Y.Times article by Andrew Revkin concerning the Bush administrations recent policy statements about Global Warming.  In the original article Revkin states that the Bush position is out of step with many environmental groups and most countries that have accepted the Kyoto Protocol.  Bush & his advisors are now recommending adapting to inevitable changes in the environment rather than cleaning up our collective human act in order to try to save the environment. 
Your version of the article was considerably garbled and instead gave the impression that Bush's view is accepted in the environmental community. (I've included the two versons below for your reference) Nothing could be further from the truth.
The policy that Bush is now advocating is nothing short of environmental suicide.  My suspicion is that Bush and his Multi-National Corporate buddies actually believe that they can figure out how to make a profit off of Global Warming and hence this policy shift. What they obviously don't understand is that the global catastrophic changes we all will probably experience may result in a non-economic future.  By this I mean that the very concept of marketplace and international or even national commerce will probably disappear along with a viable ecosystem.  What we will most likely face, if we survive as a species, will be a hand-to-mouth existence of isolated human communities struggling to survive in a hostile environment.  (Picture for example an Iowa summer with average temperatures in the 130 degree range. How much corn could we grow there?)
The only sane course of action for us as individuals, and as a society, is to do everything we can to reverse global warming, even if it causes some economic difficulties in the short term.
Thank you,
Philip Scott - Leopold Group of the Iowa Sierra Club

P.S.--The original N.Y. Times article paragraph four:
   "It (Bush) recommends adapting to inevitable changes. It does not recommend making rapid reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming, the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries that have accepted the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treaty written in the Clinton administration that was rejected by Mr. Bush."

The same paragraph as it appeared in the Register:
   "It instead recommends adapting to inevitable changes.  That is the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries and have accepted the Kyoto Protocol, a Clinon-era climate treaty that the Bush Administration rejected."

calogics wrote:
why don't you express these concerns to the d.m. register...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip W. Scott" <[log in to unmask]>



The reason that Bush recommends . . . disappear along with a viable ecosystem.

Jane Clark wrote:

Global Warming, New York Times articleThanks for sending this, Jack.  The
fourth paragraph was especially interesting . . . 

What a very strange editing change.

Jane Clark

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]