How's this for jaw dropping...

How's this for jaw dropping, mind-boggling, unintentional irony?

Question to the Bush administration at this year's UN climate change talks:

If you look back over the course of the last few years, is there anything you would have done differently or is there anything you wished had happened but didn't happen?


I wish first that Russia had made its mind up sooner as to whether it was going to join Kyoto or not.

Read the particulars here. (No it won't make anymore sense)

More like this

Michael Fumento is piqued because nobody paid any attention to his ludicrous and childish dare to us, DemFromCT at DailyKos and Tim Lambert and MadMike here at SciBlogs: Okay guys, put your bucks where your blogs are! Ten to one odds for each of you; each gets to pick the amount in question. I say…
2100 hrs This is a bit of an experiment for me. First, I haven't done a lot of live blogging. Second, I don't know whether science will play any part in tonight's debate. 2102 Lehrer is introducing. Looks like McCain showed up... Lehrer: quoting Eisenhower, re military and econ strength. Obama:…
It's the end of the calendar year and the traditional time the media looks back on "the biggest stories of the year." There are websites about almost any subject (even one on a particular model of running shoe, I am told), but those of us who write specialized blogs (as opposed to ones about…
This posting is brought to you courtesy of H.E.Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news Bali Blather supplement (skip to bottom) The Deal Reactions Rollback? Day-by-Day Shameless Self Promotion .sig The Deal2007/12/15: UNFCCC: Decisions adopted by COP 13 and CMP…

The irony almost makes up for the hypocrisy.

Nothing the Bush Administration says makes any sense. And never did.

This particular response is called "deferment" and "deflection" I think. Respond by not answering the question and deflect into a new direction. There are actually schools you can go to to learn how to do this, most politicians are graduates.

politicians not answering questions and just saying something else is standard stuff, but this is not a case of that at all. There was a option of which question to answer stipulated by the "or". He chose to answer the second question. Fair enough.

Incidentally, Bush had put forward his 'methane to markets' plan earlier as a cost effective strategy to fight global warming.

Kyoto is a waste of time which will be ignored by countries like China while enforced in countries like the US. The result will be industries continuing to move from the clean first world to the horribly polluted, inefficient, developing world which, in the end, will make our problems worse. China will enforce Kyoto with about the same fervor they enforce US copyrights.

Investing a few billion in nuclear power might help, if people were really serious about moving away from fossil fuels, as a willingness to use plutonium. But oddly, few in the environmental movement seem to favor this. Also, iron fertilization of the ocean's dead zones would be helpful, and the resulting algal bloom could be harvested to good effect. But of course, we're then brought to asking whether the goal is to actually reduce CO2 or simply hobble the industrial world. The inconsistency of people's responses strongly suggests the latter.