But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25 years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.
It's even worse than that. It's not based on science at all, but politically correct social engineering that makes the assumption that the USA is evil because with only 4.5% of earth's population, we consume 25% of it's energy.
See post #41. Here's the full quotes from both of these less than honest influential individuals who pushed the Kyoto Protocol:
...the "noble lie" theory of leadership (ie: the elite must tell necessary lies to the masses to achieve desirable goals)
First, former Colorado Senator and Deputy Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth, who presently heads Ted Turners billion dollar fund to reduce world population:
"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue," said Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, D-Colo., the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's point man on that issue and chairman of the Alliance to Save Energy. "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
As reported in REPORTS - Less Burning, No Tears
By ROCHELLE L. STANFIELD, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Saturday, Aug. 13, 1988
Second: Climatologist Dr. Steven Schneider is a professor at Stanford and a member of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He has recently criticized Danish Statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg for scientific dishonesty in Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
But Schneider is hardly a paragon of scientific integrity. In a now famous interview in the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine, Schneider showed his true colors:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.