From The American Thinker (via Blogs For Victory)
The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
- Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
- Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
- Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
- Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.
World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?
This is why the Climahysterics avoid any mention of actual statistics, facts, and numbers while discussing the next plan to replace Kyoto when it expires in 2012. Instead, they talk about climate offsets, in effect, forcibly transferring money from productive countries to non-productive countries, which is, at last reckoning, also known as socialism. As Slate points out:
The world’s governments agreed to a global-warming “action plan.” Basics: more talks aimed at serious emissions cuts. Old approach: Rich nations do the cutting. New approach: Rich nations pay poor ones to join in the cutting.
OK, either socialism or a really big pyramid scheme.
And the Goracle?
(Gore) continued, “So today we dumped another seventy million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow we will dump a slightly larger amount.
If by “tomorrow,” he means the next climate change conference, he is probably right. We had three huge conferences on climate change, which put massive amounts of what climahysterics say is causing climate change into the atmosphere, in 2007. More are planned for 2008.
I’m sure all the baby turtles were thrilled with the bloviation in Bali, too!
And can’t you just hear Ann Coulter saying “pantywaist!”?
He is known as the “hard man” of climate-change negotiation.
But after 12 exhausting days of trying to reach a worldwide agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was suddenly all too much for Yvo de Boer.
As the 200-nation Bali conference wrangled over a minor procedural matter, the Dutch diplomat in charge of the talks burst into tears and had to be led away by colleagues.
I don’t call them “climahysterics” for just one reason, ya know.
Curt at Flopping Aces has an interesting take on “consensus,” including 100 scientists who called BS to UN head thief Ban Ki-moon.
Many of the deniers are in the same group that believes the earth is 10,000 years old.
International cooperation and coordination among the world’s governments definitely needs to improve when it comes to dealing with the environment. I wish the U.S. government would take more responsibility and show more leadership in this area.
Teach, in your last climate change post you linked to an article by NASA regarding sun spot activity, which has been steadily declining over the past four to five years. Global temperatures, however, have been rising during that same time.
For future reference, it’s generally not helpful to cite a source that contradicts your own argument.
Thanks for that nonsequiter, John.
Silke, I go with what the science says, rather then what the talking points from the UN are.
I believe that the earth is 10,001 years old.
I’m glad you bring arguments from a variety of individuals to your page.
Teach said: Silke, I go with what the science says, rather then what the talking points from the UN are.
And the science, according to the site you linked to yourself, states that sun spot activity has been steadily declining over the past several years. If the sun is primarily causing the current warming trend then how do you explain this?
And that has what to do with the post, Silke? Care to comment on the substance of the post?
In my first response I did comment on the substance of the post.
My last comment was in response to your statement about science. Even the scientific evidence you cite (specifically sun spot activity) contradicts your own argument. Can you please explain this?
I drive a company vehicle: 2007 Chevrolet 2500 HD, Duramax Diesel. I leave a really big carbon footprint! And I love the s*** out of it! It goes where I want, when I want. Nuff Said!
[…] despite the fact that emissions from Kyoto signaturies increasing by an average of 21%. There has got to be another explanation. Of course, climahysterics will just say it is changing […]