2004-11-19
GLOBAL WARMING
Global Warming a certainty; where should we stand on Kyoto? | My "fellow eclecticist" H Kent Craig seems to have come to the conclusion that at least some catastrophic outcomes are inevitable | He womders, however, about the impact of the Kyoto Accords, and whether or not they would really help redirect global change in the next 1,000 years or just change who gets to pollute more in the 21st century | His comments begin:
Global Warming a certainty; where should we stand on Kyoto? | My "fellow eclecticist" H Kent Craig seems to have come to the conclusion that at least some catastrophic outcomes are inevitable | He womders, however, about the impact of the Kyoto Accords, and whether or not they would really help redirect global change in the next 1,000 years or just change who gets to pollute more in the 21st century | His comments begin:I saw a program last night on C-SPAN about the impact that global warming is going to have on the polar ice caps (they’ll be essentially gone within three generations) and rising sea levels (good-bye Miami, eventually) that was also a presentation to a Senate committee of the major report of same by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , this report being the most un-biased, most broadly-based across all scientific disciplines and political dogmatisms spectra ever, by three hundred of the world’s most distinguished scientists. ...THE WHOLE STORY | Scroll down to the 17 Nov 04 entry | ¶ 08:55
I wonder how many people have actually read the Kyoto Protocols? If they did, and agree with them, then their biases are anti-US and anti-Western Culture, plain and simple, and have nothing to do with concerns about anything else.
If the Kyoto Protocols were meant to do anything other than kick the economies of the developing world squarely in the gonads under the guise of preventing global warming, then they wouldn’t allow China and India and Indonesia and all other so-called “developing nations” to basically pollute the atmosphere at will, to pump virtually unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide into our planet’s biosphere.
Yet, The Protocols clearly state that the problem is that the US and Europe are too old and fat and greedy and being such mean old capitalists make us all evil and the developing world should be held blameless if they want to burn unlimited amounts of fossils fuels to make their respective economies stronger even though it will mean a net zero sum reduction in preventing burned hydrocarbon products that are the primary source of global warming. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander; what is required of the West should also be required of the East.
