When Vice President Al Gore returned from Kyoto, Japan, with a climate treaty in 1997, it was already a dead letter. The Senate, which ratifies treaties, strongly opposed the deal even before Gore signed it.
On Wednesday, Gore returned to the Senate to offer advice about how to arrive at a different outcome as a new climate treaty is negotiated this year in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The federal calendar is packed with pressing business in 2009. One of the toughest deadlines is to lay the groundwork for the international climate talks in Copenhagen.
Now I would call our action to reject Kyoto in 1998 the absolute right thing to do. Now we are in the economic dumper and Gore thinks we should commit economic suicide so we can feed his deparaved religion of Gaia worship.
We pitiful humans are as able to control the climate as we are to control the eruption of a volcano – think Mt. Pinatubo (Philippines) or Mt. St. Helen (Washington state) or the impending eruption of Mt. Redoubt (Alaska).
We kid ourselves if we think we can do anything – good or ill – in comparison to any significant volcanic eruption. The principal cause of global warming or global cooling or climate change is the Sun. Duh! When the Sun burns out in several million or billion years from now the case will be made. Q.E.D.
The environmental freaks are not interested in the truth. They are interested in being able to control other people and tell them what to do. This is essentially another move to create the Nanny State where people will be told what to do and what not to do from before the cradle to the grave. It is all one big power play and based on dubious scientific theory with little to no real data to back it up.
But Al Gore and his cohorts do not care about that. They are all about increasing government control over all aspects of our lives. Unfourtunately, we have four more years of this nonsense to live through. Hopefully, the voters will realize they made a huge mistake and move to rectify the situation before this country is totally destroyed.
IIRC, it was President Clinton who refused to sign Kyoto, and the Democrats in both houses at that time also didn’t see the need to sign.
#3 That is true, however, the tune sung by Democrats has changed significantly since then. They have become more beholden to the environmental movement than ever with the younger Move-on and Green crowd supplying much of their base.
The total USA population is quite small in comparison to the rest of the world. We can scream till we are blue in the face about ecology green peace etc. etc. but until the rest of the world gets on the bandwagon we are sunk unless there is a real cheap way to put a shield over the USA and keep our air clean.
[i]The total USA population is quite small in comparison to the rest of the world.[/i]
Correct, and this is what’s always made my BS detector go off on this issue. Leaving aside the merits of AGW, the US has more stringent emissions standards and has obligingly shipped much of its raw materials refinement offshore. Kyoto is completely skewed to let everybody else keep doing what they’re doing while we put ourselves in the yoke. Thus, I conclude the treaty actually has little to do with “global warming.”
when Al and his pals get out of their 10,000 sq. ft. homes and off their private jets, I MIGHT think about taking them seriously. But certainly not before then. If it’s a “crisis,” start acting like it for goodness sake.
“Of course its not really about population…”
Actually, its really about control of the populations and bringing people to a level of equally distributed ‘fairness’ decided by an intelligent overarching authority acting for the benefit of everybody.
No doubt there is ‘global warming’ and ‘global cooling’ and ‘climate change’ and to some small degree it may even be anthropomorphic. But there has been no, none, zero, nada, zip scientific proof published in an authoritative journal that has survived peer reviewed study which has tagged man as the predominant driver of changes in our weather patterns. Climate varies over time with changes in solar activity and volcanic eruptions. Large meteor impacts seem to have affected our climate, as well. I know of precious little we can do to control the sun or volcanos or meteors.
The anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) ‘computer models’ that are being touted as ‘proof’ of man’s causation are BOGUS. When these predictive models are fed actual climate history they do not replicate the historic result. They have either been poorly tuned, to be charitable, producing a flawed, but convenient, result or tuned carefully, but dishonestly, to produce a desired result. In any event the ACC models lie. Think of the dishonest butcher who weighs the meat by adding force of his thumb.
Of course, I’m open to taking a look at any real peer reviewed, published scientific studies you would like to offer. But if all you have is Al Gore, et al telling us ‘do as I say, but ignore what I do’ please spare me.
ACC is a theory, perhaps. It most certainly is not settled science. It absolutely isn’t worth putting our economy in the dumper to let Al Gore, et al, have a try at controlling the climate, just to see if we can. Actrually, it is absolutely nuts to consider anything that would allow Al Gore, et al, to get anywhere close to anything resembling the levers of power in this country or anywhere else.
I hold no particular animus toward Al Gore that I don’t also hold for all the other charlatans, snake oil hucksters and ‘do as I say, not as I do’ poltroons of his ilk. That is why I used the term ‘et al.’ which is the APA abbreviation for the Latin ‘et alii’ – and others. You can look it up.
BTW, I note you did not offer a journal citation for peer reviewed research substantiating the anthropomorphic nature of climate change. May I assume you have nothing to offer in that regard?
H, thanks for replying. You’ve given me web based laundry list of the usual suspects whose ‘work’ consist of lots of rhetoric about the feel-good concensus of group think but the basis of their findings still comes back to reliance on bogus models that do not withstand proper examination. If the model can’t replicate reality with real historic data, it fails. And all these do, indeed, fail. Nice try.
As to my providing you proof, are you kidding? The AGW crowd is seeking to change ‘settled scientific thought’, not us. The onus is on the AGW crowd to prove their hypothesis and it hasn’t happened. As to consensus – a thoroughly invalid means of determining scientific fact – the range and depth of scientists who find the assertions of the AGW crowd to be in error is huge and growing as more assert their intellectual honesty. Get on board with the scientific method, do it the right way and then we can have a serious discussion.