Posted on 12/15/2007 9:22:53 AM PST by TheEaglehasLanded
If Australia does not count as a major industrialized nation, then I guess the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation.
Apparently AlGore doesn’t HAVE to sit in the oval office...
ANd don’t even get me started on the fact that is is an AFP article. I didn’t realize that chopped up quotes and innuendo from notoriously slanted organizations were swallowed as fact on FR. You people are a propagandist’s dream. “Sheeple”, indeed.
Nah I don’t see any real caving here or maybe I missed it. This really crappy article focussed on lots of emotion and then they act like finally they defeated the big bad USA enviro-monster but what the hell did they agree to do? Meet again later? Did I miss something other than a lot of anti-USA crowing about exactly what?
Well, 100 prominent scientists (and the list includes some very distinguished people) co-signed this excellent letter published on December 12th:
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
- Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
- The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
- Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
[ list of 100 signatories and their affiliations ]
LOL...we’ll not allow any stupid group of morons dictate suicide for America...just find and watch...
You are correct, Americans will foot the bill. The UN wants to tax us on carbon offsets I heard, what a bunch of bs. Grrr.
You don't think there are 60 liberals in the US Senate?
That has been a big problem. Though on some subjects Bush can stand firm. And when you think about it, his tendency to cave under pressure has benefited conservatives a couple of times, too. You would think that would lead to being liked by the opposition for your waffling. Reality is, they respect you less afterward. It's like the guy who pressures his date to have sex, she caves and then he has no respect for her at all.
More and more I'm convinced that big political issues are best won by the political opposition. Find a weak one on the other team and go for it. The reason is, his own team can't fully attack him and so the battle is much more easily won because the entire opposiiton is weakened.
Never! (Ok....../sarc).
However, the Senators will have to explain the rising costs of living etc etc to their voters. Nothing to concentrate ones mind like risking losing ones seat.
Well, at least someone read the article.
I agree that there is a risk of that, but remember that in the late nineties the Senate voted down Kyoto 97-0 or something close to that. Right now, it has been politicized as a Bush attack. The reality is that politicians may not want their record to be based on their vote to collapse the US economy.
The President has been acknowledging “global warming” for about 2 years now.
Amen!
True and disappointing. That and the court ruling which allows the EPA to treat C02 as a pollutant - what a crock!
Here's a finding that we agreed to that I found interesting:
Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and emphasizing the urgency to address climate change as indicated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Since the IPCC reporting process has been criticized by some very distinguished scientists, (for instance, see my posting #26 in this thread), I wish that we had not agreed to that particular sentence since it is in all likelihood untrue.
Also, it appears that we have agreed to some sort of permanent fund (the "Adaptation Fund") which is to be financed by the sale of carbon credits:
24. Decides that a trust fund shall be established under the management of the trustee, to be funded by the monetized share of proceeds of certified emission reductions, to meet the costs of adaptation and other sources of funding;
If they had read the article, they would have noticed that a contributing source has no credibility since he just a profession wrestler:
“Hans Verolme of conservation group WWF”
Since when does McMahon’s crowd know anything about climate change?
sarcasm/off
Since it is a “treaty” teh Senate will need 67 liberals
Although there are probably enough liberals and fools to find the 67
Clinton never even tried to submit Kyoto to a vote because the Senate at that time would have killed it.
But w the Globalist Whoring nonsense....they probably would pass Bali...or even worse....implement its provisions thru Executive Order
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.