This is my first blog post… We shall see if this is a suitable forum and I have the persistence to keep it up to date!
Today’s post was stimulated by the New York Times article entitled “Climate Talks Shift Focus to How to Deal With Changes.” (See NY Times - free subscription required).
This is a major victory for the forces of sanity! Some of the lunacy of the anti-global-warming movement has been beaten back. The more responsible members (not the Sierra club, of course) have abandoned their misguided attempt to crash the economies of the first world, especially the US, by forcing a drastic reduction of CO2 emissions. It is an amazing show of sanity on the part of the green-left - I am truly surprised!
This can only be attributed to George Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, and the growing evidence that Kyoto was a sham.
The global warming scare is one of the longest running junk science causes of the enviro-left. It is based on poor science, and until today, advocated foolish and damaging methods to prevent the “disaster.” “Global warming” has come to mean the expected warming of the earth as a result of the release of “greenhouse gases” - usually CO2.
Unfortunately for its promoters, the science behind this scare is weak. Certainly it is not unreasonable to expect some warming as a result of CO2 growth, but to believe the specific predictions used to back proposals like Kyoto is to accept uncertainty as if it were truth.
Even more damning, if Kyoto had been accepted, and if the science behind it were correct, it’s impact on global temperature would have been unmeasurable (statistically in the noise level) over the next 100 years.
Kyoto would have made no practical improvement. Sadly, it would have had dramatic negative impact on economies, with (never mentioned) trickle down effects which would have increased third world poverty.
When challenged on this, the proponents of Kyoto answered that Kyoto was “only the first step.” It was a trojan horse… a step that increased government restrictions on energy usage (at least in first world countries)… and of course increased the power of the green/left factions over the economies… but it had no benefit.
To achieve the purported benefit, much greater restrictions on energy use would have followed, with disastrous economic impact!
Of course, you never hear that from the mainstream press in the US - but the press bias is a topic for another day.
