"Kyoto, like global warming, is more political than scientific. Neither stands up to scientific scrutiny; both appeal to those who favour more state control and economic restrictions, and who favour redistribution of wealth and resources at the expense of the U.S. "
THE MYTH OF KYOTO
Peter Worthington
09/01/2005
THROUGHOUT THE Cold War, until the final collapse of the Soviet Empire, there were always people in the West -- usually well-educated -- who believed in the good intentions of communism.
Universities were an incubator for Marxism and a benign view of Soviet altruism. When Sovietism became tainted after "aberrations" like crushing the Hungarian rebellion (1956) and the invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968), admiration was shifted to China and the humanitarianism of Mao Tse-tung. Until he was also discredited.
Such people tended to blame the West (i.e. the U.S.) for the Cold War, and figured if we disarmed, the Kremlin would also disarm, making the world safer.
When the Soviet Union imploded, I and others wrote that the types who once saw humanity in Marxism would now switch to the environment and see salvation for mankind in opposing those they felt were desecrating nature.
Out of this "instinct" emerged the Kyoto Accord -- the campaign to fight global warming which supposedly threatens the world, but is a myth.
One who combats the Kyoto/global warming myth is novelist Michael Crichton, whose new book, State of Fear, is a thriller laced with indisputable facts. Another is America and Europe by Canadian Craig Read. Both books should make those who espouse Kyoto feel foolish.
Kyoto, like global warming, is more political than scientific. Neither stands up to scientific scrutiny; both appeal to those who favour more state control and economic restrictions, and who favour redistribution of wealth and resources at the expense of the U.S.
New ice age
Warnings of global warming by the UN and select scientists are reminiscent of UN warnings around 1970 that a new ice age was approaching -- which it may well be, in a thousand years or so.
Like Crichton, Read notes that climate change is one of the least-understood sciences, involving the sun, atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice sheets, the biosphere, cloud coverage, etc. -- all relationships impossible to gauge or predict in modelling programs by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which advises the UN.
The more one examines global warming, the less likely it seems that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have anything but a negligible effect. The Kyoto agreement calls for developed nations to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, but okays poor countries continuing with fossil fuel emissions until they catch up to developed country emissions. Poor nations can even sell their "credits" to rich countries that can continue violating standards.
Does that make sense? Of course not. More, Kyoto seems an intricate scheme to redistribute wealth -- to hold back rich countries so poorer ones can catch up.
The U.S. has rejected Kyoto. That means it's dead.
No evidence
In fact, there's no evidence that CO2 is damaging to nature. Also, there is solid scientific evidence that CO2 lags average temperature rises by several centuries. CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age (114,000 years ago) than during the much warmer period 43 million years earlier. CO2 levels are higher today than the relatively hot period 17 million years ago.
Scientifically, there seems little relation between CO2 levels and warmth. Cold summers and hot winters (and vice-versa) are far more likely to be cyclical -- nothing to do with SUVs or air conditioners.
From 1910-1945, temperatures rose slightly, then cooled between 1945 and 1975 -- when, inexplicably, CO2 emissions rose. Temperatures rose again 1975-2000, with the CO2 rise negligible.
I'm no scientist, but I recognize political agendas and wealth-redistribution schemes. And Kyoto and IPCC are recognizably political rather than scientific. SUVs and world trade are irrelevant to changes in the weather or climate.
What exactly is Kyoto? It seems aimed at reducing the energy advantage enjoyed by the U.S. It also advances the lib-left's influence on environmental control and media support. It enhances more government control over the economy, and limits independence and entrepreneurial projects.
These goals are reminiscent of discredited Marxism.
As in the bad old days of the Cold War, when the average working guy, more than the enlightened academic, knew instinctively that Marxism was up to no good, so working people today ignore the warnings of impending doom if Kyoto doesn't succeed.
First, cyclical weather changes are normal and inevitable. Second, a little more global warming this winter would be welcome.
