It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Good Bye, Kyoto (Off-Site Commentary)

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:17 AM
The Kyoto Protocol had begun with the best of intentions. In my heart and mind I have no doubt on this issue.

Kyoto was supposed to analyze causes of global warming. In order to generate support (i.e., figure out the best way to achieve funding necessary to, uh, "cure global warming"), it was necessary to focus on human causes of global warming.

Kyoto had its real beginning at the 1992 Global Climate Summit in Rio de Janeiro. I missed that great party, but George Bush the elder went and signed up for the United States. The language of the Global Climate Treaty, the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), was vague enough to not be completely objectionable—although we should have known better than to let the camel’s nose enter the tent. It has prejudiced the subsequent discussion by focusing only on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

If we are convinced that we are the cause of global warming, we may be able to control global warming. After all, it is a heck of a lot easier to try and convince the world to invest in green business ideas than say, oh, control the solar output of the sun or control the geo-thermal flatulence produce by earth. Odd that pure science should take such a myopic view of such a broad problem:

Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of America’s most distinguished scientists and President Emeritus of the Rockefeller University, had this to say in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on June 12, 1996: “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

Now I am not saying that investing in renewable energy or being proactive in energy conservation is a bad thing. I am also not saying that people have not done their share of contributing to climate change. What has happened is that the wrong kind of science is at work here. Political Scientists need to keep their noses out of the business of Earth Scientists. Science will be corrupted as long as governments offer them their 30 pieces of silver, lest they sell their scientific souls.



log in