A Convenient Lie

Submitted by Brad on 7/5/06 at 12:45 PM. ( ) 65.73.67.59

A Convenient Lie

Real Clear Politics
July 05, 2006
By John Stossel


When he was in college, atmospheric-science professor John Christy was told, "it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy."

That prediction has gone the way of so many others. But environmentalists continue to warn us that we face environmental disaster if we don't accept the economic disaster called the Kyoto treaty. Lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (another environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) explain: "Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas." And Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," depicts a future in which cities are submerged by rising sea levels.

Wow.

But many scientists laugh at the panic.

<snip>

The former vice president's film ... shows shocking time-lapse photos of ice disappearing from Mt. Kilimanjaro. The ice there has been melting for over a hundred years.

Climate always changes. "An Inconvenient Truth" implies that all serious scientists agree that it is a crisis, and that the United States must immediately reduce carbon dioxide emissions as dictated by the Kyoto treaty the Bush administration so arrogantly refuses to sign -- the same treaty the Clinton-Gore administration didn't even submit to the Senate.

<snip again>

The fundamentalist doom-mongers ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season.

Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument?

Full article at Real Clear Politics

It's a shame America doesn't have more journalists like Stossel.

Return to Current Events Category Menu


So you

This response submitted by Alex Sr on 7/5/06 at 1:20 PM. ( ) 66.32.89.172

Think we are running out of fossil fuels ?

If your smart you start to look at alternative fuels and a horse and buggy.


Mount Pinatubo...

This response submitted by Steve on 7/5/06 at 1:31 PM. ( rotramel@midwest ) 4.159.177.229

...put out more greenhouse gases in 9 hours than the entire industrial revolution in a hundred years.

Net effect of the eruption? Global cooling for a few years.

I'm not saying we aren't warming up. If it is really happening as a trend, I do believe we can't perfectly nail down the particulars of why, or do anything at all to stop it.

The Kyoto treaty is about money (ours) and power (ours too). If we signed it we would be surrendering boxcar loads of both, without a proven need or benefit.


Just a reminder

This response submitted by Jim on 7/5/06 at 7:56 PM. ( ) 65.183.171.197

People who say that ..."we can't do anything at all to stop it"...are already being left behind by those who ARE DOING SOMETHING to slow it down. That "The Kyoto treaty "IS about money (ours) and power (ours too) IS just your opinion. The Koyoto protocols MAY be about a serious international evaluation of a potentially harmful climactic occurrence. Maybe you would like to find out where YOUR opinion fits with that of the international community?... No?.. Did't think so.
snip/snipper pmvhole:
"Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow." Of course you CONVENIENTLY left out the fact that tropical rain forests account for a major portion of the earth's oxygen, and that those forests are being destroyed by human acivity at an alarming (Not you of course!) rate. Kind of hard for plants to use excess CO2 if there are fewer plants! You don't get that do you? Of course not. You keep trying to discredit the occurrence of global warming, but when all of your BS whining is over and done with, it's STILL THERE. Now be a good little radical and go find something else that makes you feel like your insignificant opinion is significant.


How old are you Jim

This response submitted by ROn on 7/5/06 at 10:18 PM. ( ) 12.181.15.103

Just curious


Here's where my "opinion" comes from

This response submitted by Steve on 7/6/06 at 9:22 AM. ( steve@supra-blue.com ) 4.159.56.224

Article 11 of the Kyoto Protocols

Article 11

In the implementation of Article 10, Parties shall take into account the provisions of
Article 4, paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Convention.

2. In the context of the implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4, paragraph 3, and Article 11 of the Convention, and through the operating entity or entities of the financial mechanism of the Convention, the developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention shall:

(a) Provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed
full costs incurred by developing country Parties in advancing the implementation of existing commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention that are covered in Article 10, subparagraph (a); and

(b) Also provide such financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, needed by the developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs of advancing the implementation of existing commitments in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention that are covered by Article 10 and that are agreed between a developing country Party and the international entity or entities referred to in Article 11 of the Convention, in accordance with that Article. The implementation of these existing commitments shall take into account the need for adequacy and predictability in the flow of funds and the importance of appropriate burden sharing among developed country Parties. The guidance to the financial mechanism of the Convention in relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties, including those agreed before the adoption of this Protocol,
shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions of this paragraph.

3. The developed country Parties and other developed Parties in Annex II to the Convention may also provide, and developing country Parties avail themselves of, financial resources for the implementation
of Article 10, through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels.


To interpret, the Convention will have a "financial mechanism" with an "operating entity" that will decide how much money developed countries owe to developing countries, and when they should pay it.

There are also provisions for developed countries to buy greenhouse gas units from developing countries, and other ennumerated requirements for developed countries to transfer technology to developing countries.

What the "international community" wants is to be as properous as we are; and they want us to be required to pay for it. "Appropriate burden sharing"? This means US fellas.

Money and Power. This is not my opinion. It's written down in black and white.

Jim, did you ever read what you're talking about? Didn't think so.


Jim, Jim, Jim...

This response submitted by Old Fart on 7/7/06 at 11:23 PM. ( ) 64.122.137.48

...Where do you get your "facts"? You seem to be a bright, or at least literate person. What kind of scientific back ground do you posess?
You comment about the rainforests being the main source of oxygen production is pure BS. The main source of oxygen production(photosynthesis) is the oceans and the plants there, mainly algae. While rainforests may contribute a slightly higher proportion of oxygen production than other land based sources they are far from being "the major source" of the earth's oxygen.

This may come as a real shock to you, but there are people here that actually know the facts. Before you start spewing your "facts" you had better do a little research and get them right. And I don't mean read Al Gore's "novel"!


Return to Current Events Category Menu