Comments on: Why the Kyoto Treaty was a Fraud

By: WichitaBoy

WichitaBoy — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:22:21 +0000

I agree with your assessment of climatological models but I believe you’ve missed a few salient points.

First, the Sun seems to be significantly brighter during the last whatever (I don’t know the exact link). If this is true, well, global warming here we come.

Second, according to a European engineer friend, the Europeans picked the dates of emissions which would be used as the benchmarks in exactly such a way as to minimize their costs and maximize ours.

Third, the biggest contributors to CO2 production these days are the newly industrializing countries, particularly China. Guess who gets to have an opt-out under Kyoto?

The bottom line of Kyoto, had it ever come into play, would have been the payment of billions of dollars from the US to China so we could buy their “rights”. There would have been zero effect on CO2 emissions. The whole thing was a fraud from start to finish.

For Clinton to sign it, knowing full well that it had zero support back home, was another of his many acts of singular cynicism. I guess it depends on what “it” means….

By: The Tapir

The Tapir — Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:22:29 +0000

There's new evidence from NASA suggesting recent 'Martian Warming'.

By: DCE

DCE — Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:01:40 +0000

Sorry, it looks like I miscoded the links. Let's try that again: The posts mentioned above can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

By: DCE

DCE — Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:38 +0000

I've always believed that there were too many "gotcha's" in the Kyoto Protocols, particularly since many of the assumptions made are based upon unproven or discredited research. I've covered that here, here, here, and here. A more rational explanantion (one backed up by research and with repeateable experiments) is solar activity, as covered here.

By: John

John — Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:55:02 +0000

Anyway, you’re right about water vapor having a greater effect on temperature change than CO2. The thing is that when the temperature increases, there’s increased water evaporation. This results in more precipitation, and the temperature decreases. So, it takes care of itself. What we should really worry about is how much the temperature will DECREASE, not increase!

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:58:40 +0000

Ah, but Mr. Anderson, the real question isn't how GM is getting the SUVs to Mars, it's who's driving them! The climate-control business reminds me of why I went into astrophysics, lo these many moons ago: no one can check your work. If you want a "crisis" that's objectively unchallengeable, simply because conclusively disconfirming data are effectively impossible to gather, you hawk global warming. As Ann Coulter wrote in Slander, this protects the statist Left from being proved wrong for at least a thousand years. Hm. If they appreciate their own logic, one of these days they'll leave "global warming" behind and focus on the horrifying threat to Mankind posed by the possibility of a local supernova. Can you imagine the scale of totalitarian control that could justify?

By: John Anderson

John Anderson — Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:09:28 +0000

Every once in a while I suggest that someone who believes climate change is due solely to mankind ask GM to divulge the technology by which they are shipping SUV’s to Mars, causing the poles there to melt faster than usual as reported in March of this year. I have heard the same may be true of Jupiter’s moons, but the evidence so far is suggestive rather than conclusive.

But then, climatologists say there was no Medieval Warm (colonies in Greenland and vineyards in England notwithstanding), or it was only European (ignore those reports from China), or only northern hemisphere (those studies in South America, Australia, and Africa don’t count), and the Thames never froze over or only stopped doing so in the 1920’s with the automobile being considered transportation instead of a rich man’s toy…