Was British broadcaster Trevor MacDonald auditioning for the next John Cleese movie when he offered the following rejoinder in an interview he just did with President Bush for ITV’s “Tonight”?
TONIGHT: But pollution in this country has increased amazingly since 1992.
PRESIDENT BUSH: That is a totally inaccurate statement.
TONIGHT: It’s a UN figure.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
12 Comments
1. Richard Nieporent:No, not even the UN is that biased. Bjorn Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, used UN statistics to show that pollution was decreasing.
Jul 4, 2005 - 8:53 am 2. Dianne:Not to mention this is a random statement and there is no figure given.
Jul 4, 2005 - 9:12 am 3. kps:PRESIDENT BUSH: That is a totally inaccurate statement.
TONIGHT: It’s a UN figure.
I see no contradiction here.
Jul 4, 2005 - 9:29 am 4. richard mcenroe:The only possible response to that demi-witty Pom’s last statement would be a big ole Texas grin…
Jul 4, 2005 - 9:54 am 5. David Thomson:ìTONIGHT [interrupting]: But is that putting American industrial economic interests above the global interests of the environment?î
Did Trevor MacDonald ask such a stupid question with a straight face? His economic ignorance is mind boggling. MacDonald fails to understand that the rest of the world would suffer horribly if Americaís economy is severely harmed. Alfred P. Sloan reportedly claimed that what was good for GM was good for America. Am I saying something similar regarding our economy in relation to the whole world? Yup, I most certainly am. The world, whether we like it or not, revolves around us.
Anyone possessing half a brain knows that horrible poverty would result if we enacted even a few of the Kyoto recommendations. The elites, however, have deluded themselves that they are economically safe and only the unwashed masses will feel the inevitable consequences.
Jul 4, 2005 - 9:59 am 6. David [.net]:“Pollution” has been redfined in recent years to mean carbon dioxide. That way the black skies of east Asia don’t count. The US can then be made to be the worst polluter, and getting worse.
Jul 4, 2005 - 11:05 am 7. richard mcenroe:“The next John Cleese movie?” Hmmm… maybe you could be a little more sympathetic to an old fogey like Trudeau…
Jul 4, 2005 - 11:06 am 8. PeterUK:Poor old Trev’ in the hands of the sneaky little Trots that do the research,or I should say invent the research.Sorry about this, but Trev wouldn’t know if you were still hunting buffalo and lighting your way with whale oil.Trev just reads what is put in front of him this is just a standard piece of BBC UNery.
The Beeb is a very similar organisation to the UN,a bunch of self-opinionated parasites living on other peoples money.
Happy Fourth of July,just pay the back taxes and all is forgiven
Jul 4, 2005 - 12:48 pm 9. colin:The GM comment is one of those comments that was too good to be true.(And it wasn’t).There were two “Charlie Wilson”s in the Eisenhower cabinet:”Engine Charlie”-head of GM and “Electric Charlie”-head of GE.During Engine Charlie’s confirmation hearings he was asked if he could make a decision that was good for the country,but bad for GM.He replied,”Yes,but I have trouble visualizing such a decision,because what has been good for this country has always been good for General Motors”.
My college econ teacher made a student who incorrectly quoted it get it from Congressional Record and correct it to the class.
Jul 4, 2005 - 3:57 pm 10. richard mcenroe:I’m sorry , Roger, did you say “witty Brits” or “brittle twits?”
Jul 4, 2005 - 7:19 pm 11. Sally-O:The double-standards when it comes to America never fails to amaze.
“TONIGHT: I hear what you say about tripling the aid to Africa, but it’s still only – it’s less than 0.2% of gross domestic national product. And that is less than what the United Nations talks about, of having 0.7%. Some European countries are moving towards that. Why can’t America?”
Get that? If America is increasing aid, even tripling it, it still doesn’t measure up to what the UN “talks about.” At the same time, some unnamed European countries get credit for “moving toward” what’s talked about even if they too haven’t achieved it.
Leaving aside the absurdity of making UN “talk” the benchmark here, why doesn’t the inteviewer similarly consider American increases to be movement toward this arbitrary number?
This reminds me of Kyoto, which the Euro-press and Euro-governments love to bash America over. If the Europeans are so keen on adhering to stricter environmental regulations, then what’s stopping them? Why don’t they start tomorrow?
Jul 4, 2005 - 9:05 pm 12. Buddy Larsen:Sally-O, one would think that guaranteeing freedom of the seas and sending armies to fight the dragons ought to figure in to who is paying for what. What’s with all this compartmentalization, anyway?
Let’s have a real balance sheet. Otherwise, why bother with line-items?
Jul 5, 2005 - 6:56 am