A long and carefully-worded December 14 Washington Post article about this week's climate change conference in Bali portrayed President Bush as the reason that the United States is not following Kyoto and the sole roadblock to saving Mother Earth.
On top of that, even while presenting the eco-blame-game's backstory, the reporter never mentioned the Clinton/Gore administration's involvement or that they set the standard for how America handles Kyoto.
After an article full of finger-pointing at Bush and quotes by enviro-saint and full-time jet-setter Al Gore, WashPost reporter Juliet Eilperin misrepresented Kyoto (bold mine throughout):
The United States took part in drafting the Kyoto pact, but it was repudiated by Bush in 2001.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Denmarks's climate and energy minister, Connie Hedegaard, said in an interview Thursday that including short-term emissions reduction targets of at least 25 percent in any final agreement here remains "one of the bottom lines the European Union has got.
Here we go again. “Repudiated” does mean, in part, “to refuse to recognize," but that sentence still isn't exactly true.
Here's Wikipedia's explanation of America's history with Kyoto (and a link to OpinionJournal.com for more):
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
(...)
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide).
The way Eilperin wrote with Clintonian parsing, it seems as if Kyoto was in effect until, suddenly in 2001 Bush “repudiated” it. Usually the media inaccurately claim Bush “rejected” Kyoto, but this time Eilperin chose “repudiated,” which allowed her to be technically correct while conveying the same message.
Missing from the article is that the previous Clinton/Gore administration refused to ratify the pact until China was included. Neither Bush nor Clinton could have ratified it if they chose, they are barred by Byrd-Hagel from doing so. I guess it fits the storyline better to omit all of that information, although a few sentences could have done it.
No mention that China passed the US and is now the number one carbon producer, and India will take the number three spot in 2015. Both joined Kyoto but are not bound by it.
In addition, global warming activists divulged at Bali that the real goal is wealth redistribution from industrialized nations to developing ones, not carbon reduction.
Lynn contributes to NewsBusters. She can be reached at tvisgoodforyou2 AT yahoo DOT com.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I give up.
December 14, 2007 - 17:41 ET by motherbeltDuct tape alert!!!
The MSM is going to keep pushing this line, no matter what.
Resistance is futile.
Pass me the roll quickly
December 14, 2007 - 17:51 ET by GregEPass me the roll quickly please! The MSM saying this nonsense is one thing, the thing that makes duct tape even more necessary is when, while talking to a liberal, they spout the line like good little MSM zombies. Oh, and don't dare repudiate what they say, cuz the FREAKS don't only come out at night!
Side note, check this out. http://www.allheadli...
The earth actually warming somewhere just by natural reasons? Was there formerly a "consensus" on this too, which is now being "repudiated?" Say it ain't so!
China emits more real polution than all others..
December 14, 2007 - 17:53 ET by RonC"China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide)."
I heard yesterday from a reputable source that China IS the largest emitter of carbon dioxide.
But so what?
CO2 is NOT a factor in our climate or 'warming' - contrary to the BS spewed by America hating socialist states (and idiots in this country) that want to rip off this nation.
For crying out loud, we all
December 14, 2007 - 21:24 ET by motherbeltFor crying out loud, we all exhale CO2 with every breath!!
Since when is CO2 a "pollutant"?? It's a "pollutant" since a couple of years ago, when a bunch of eggheads got together and decided to classify it as one, so that they could regulate it.
That is the same kind of mind that uses the terms "light pollution" and "noise pollution."
And it's the same kind of mind that classifies sugar and caffeine as "drugs."
Evidentally even the global
December 14, 2007 - 21:34 ET by GregEEvidentally even the global warming Kyoto loving crowd doesn't truly think CO2 is a factor. After all, if I thought the world was in peril due to some controllable entity, and there was this country called China as the number one producer of that entity that is most definitely going wreak absolute havoc on the world (the global warming freaks say we're in an 11th hour scenario), then would I give China a pass to wreak world havoc with their emissions? HECK NO!!!! If they get a pass, then they're the largest cause of the problem continuing, and encouraged to continue.
Let's see, if I have 3 people with their guns pointed at me, and I know that one trigger pull will kill me, do I tell two of them they have to set the guns down and tell the third it's ok, keep yours pointed at me and pull the trigger in 5 minutes while I stand here waiting for it?
So does the global warming crowd buy into what they themselves are preaching? Or are they just THAT completely stupid? Well, ok, "both" is an acceptable answer.
Exactly!
December 14, 2007 - 21:45 ET by HypocriteHaterAll those enviro-nuts expect the US to "take the lead" so other countries will be "inspired to follow". That's a bunch of bull! They want the US economy to tank so other countries can take the lead in order to bring the US down a notch in terms of military and economic strength.
Follow the money . . .
December 14, 2007 - 22:11 ET by GalvanicSo does the global warming crowd buy into what they themselves are preaching? Or are they just THAT completely stupid? Well, ok, "both" is an acceptable answer.
It all depends whether you are talking about a handful of scientists or the larger political body. But belief or not, it's all about money.
Those scientists may or may not truly believe all the nonsense that peiople like Gore spew out, but they know Gore has turned many US politicians into "believers," and that means grant money for GW research that supports the theory, and none for research that even casts a degree of uncertainty on it.
On the political front, the socialists & Marxists -- having lost a great sponsor when the USSR and Eastern Europe toppled thei Communist regimes --- have latched onto AGW as the new Front. The goal is wealth redistribution, from the US and the West, to the Third World. Despite cries of a desperate global situation that can cost millions of lives, Kyoto weighs the needs of the Haves against those of the Have Nots, and reallocates wealth accordingly. China and India were exempted from the Kyoto limits "in order for their booming economies to catch up." If it were all about climate, no serious scientists would grant China and India exemptions.
Strange Priorities
December 15, 2007 - 03:03 ET by Lynn DavidsonDespite cries of a desperate global situation that can cost millions of lives, Kyoto weighs the needs of the Haves against those of the Have Nots, and reallocates wealth accordingly. China and India were exempted from the Kyoto limits "in order for their booming economies to catch up." If it were all about climate, no serious scientists would grant China and India exemptions.
Exactly. I also find it strange that they continue their jet-set lifestyles and eating meat.
Yep, and your last line
December 15, 2007 - 09:49 ET by GregEYep, and your last line says it all. The fact that they let India and China pass tells the story, but the media won't dare mention that angle. After all, those who have never thought of that interesting aspect may never think of it, so far be it for the media to screw with a good scam.
Inconvenient Facts
December 15, 2007 - 00:48 ET by PopularTechChina rejects binding targets on greenhouse emissions (Forbes)
- China surpasses United States in emissions (United Press International)
- 750,000 a year killed by Chinese pollution (Financial Times, UK)
US Senate Rejects Kyoto 95-0 (Byrd-Hagel Resolution, 1997)
- Bill Clinton 'Signed' Kyoto in 1998 (CNN)
- George Bush rejects mandatory limits on emissions (The Times, UK)
- UPI Poll: Don't ratify Kyoto treaty (NewsDaily)
- U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Fossil Fuels Declined By 1.3% In 2006 (Science Daily)
- U.S. Greenhouse Emissions Fell 1.5% in 2006 (USA Today)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Send green please
December 14, 2007 - 21:13 ET by acumenThe best option is more dialogue with enviro-jetsetters before we irresponsibly rush into any ill-conceived strategy based on Algore's failed policy that got us into this mess to start with.
However, as a sign of good faith all Americans should reach out to our enviro-jetsetting enemies by offering assistance to build a bigger private jet parking area at the Bali airport. Please send a private message for instructions on where to send your green donations - sorry, no carbon credits accepted at this time.
In addition, global warming
December 14, 2007 - 22:12 ET by MidAmericaIn addition, global warming activists divulged at Bali that the real goal is wealth redistribution from industrialized nations to developing ones, not carbon reduction.
Countries are just businesses. How long are some of these countries going to be 'developing'? The problem these countries are having is not that they need aid but the fact they are built around a failed business model. They want aid? Then they must give up what doesn't work in the modern world and become self sustaining free-market economies. Look what it did for China.
You Vill Submit!
December 15, 2007 - 00:14 ET by tpmintxI know that I am preaching to the choir here, but it needs to be repeated:
Environmentalism took on a new urgency at about the same time as the people in Eastern Europe figured out that socialism was not quite the wonderful system that was initially advertised.
The environment is the new proletariat and it cannot fight back, and environmentalists know this. Environmentalists are today's "useful idiots" who are carrying the flag of global socialism. Al Gore is not a useful idiot, he wants to be the boss. They must be feeling pretty confident in Bali, because they actually spilled the beans this time.
Kyoto is a Joke
December 15, 2007 - 00:47 ET by PopularTechKyoto:
"We will not submit this [Kyoto Protocol] for ratification until there's meaningful participation by key developing nations." - Al Gore, 1997
The Truth about Al Gore and Kyoto (Video) (2min)
Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global warming is not a priority (Video) (17min)
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Your car's catalytic converter removes about 95% of these pollutants.
Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)
* Water Pollution is already regulated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Amended: Clean Water Act of 1977, Water Quality Act of 1987)
* The Clear Skies Act of 2003 Failed to Pass the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Bloomberg)
APEC unlikely to accept binding gas targets in climate change fight (Herald Tribune)
Australia rejects Kyoto pact (BBC)
- Kevin Rudd recoils from climate change pledge (Herald Sun, Australia)
Canada joins anti-Kyoto bloc (National Post, Canada)
- Canada alarmed over Kyoto costs (BBC)
- Canada report defends saying no to Kyoto target (Reuters)
China rejects binding targets on greenhouse emissions (Forbes)
- China surpasses United States in emissions (United Press International)
- 750,000 a year killed by Chinese pollution (Financial Times, UK)
Greece fails on Kyoto targets (Kathimerini, Greece)
India rejects greenhouse gas limits (Herald Sun, Australia)
Italy breaks EU ranks on Kyoto (The Parliament)
Japan emissions to rise, reaching Kyoto goals hard (Reuters)
- Japan's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise 6.4% From 1990 Levels (Bloomberg)
- Japan plans to buy carbon credits from Hungary to achieve Kyoto Treaty goal (Herald Tribune, Australia)
Lithuania decides to take EU to court over CO2 cut (Reuters)
New Zealand - NZ to bring in carbon trading, but still lag Kyoto (Reuters)
Spain Lags Behind in Kyoto Protocol Compliance (Tierramerica)
Turkey rejects Kyoto (Today's Zaman, Turkey)
UK Revealed: cover-up plan on energy target (The Guardian. UK)
- UK public rejects Kyoto Protocol (International Policy Network)
US Senate Rejects Kyoto 95-0 (Byrd-Hagel Resolution, 1997)
- Bill Clinton 'Signed' Kyoto in 1998 (CNN)
- George Bush rejects mandatory limits on emissions (The Times, UK)
- UPI Poll: Don't ratify Kyoto treaty (NewsDaily)
- U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Fossil Fuels Declined By 1.3% In 2006 (Science Daily)
- U.S. Greenhouse Emissions Fell 1.5% in 2006 (USA Today)
Global Warming not a Cost-effective Target (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Greens Concede Kyoto Will Not Impact 'Global Warming' (CNSNews)
Kyoto Count Up! (Junk Science)
Kyoto projects harm ozone layer: U.N. official (Reuters)
Kyoto would cost a million Euro jobs, 80 billion euros by 2010 (National Business Review)
Kyoto's Global Warming Controls Could Harm Forests (Science Daily)
Lessons of Kyoto (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
The Fatal Conceit of Kyoto (The Frasier Institute)
The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard)
The Kyoto Protocol is Dead (Reason Magazine)
The Press Gets It Wrong - Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty (The Wall Street Journal)
Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved (The Guardian, UK)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
More on Kyoto
December 15, 2007 - 01:07 ET by UnsaneThat opening qoute by Al Gore is hysterical, especially considering China, India, and other developing nations are 100% exempt from the Kyoto Protocol.
Also note that though the scientists we are to slavishly believe say that tropical deforestation is responsible for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, such deforestation is addressed nowhere in the Kyoto Protocol.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Rainforests
December 15, 2007 - 01:16 ET by PopularTechRainforests - Amazon Forest Shows Unexpected Resiliency During Drought (Science Daily)
Rainforests - Amazon Rainforest Greens Up In The Dry Season (Science Daily)
Rainforests - Impact From Rainforest Greenhouse Gasses May Not Be As Great As Thought, Study Shows (Science Daily)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
GREAT resource!!!
December 19, 2007 - 17:18 ET by UnsaneFrigging AWESOME!!!
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Does Not Apply
December 15, 2007 - 08:30 ET by Pete Wilson"No mention that China passed the US and is now the number one carbon producer, and India will take the number three spot in 2015. Both joined Kyoto but are not bound by it."
I am reminded of a joke about a lady who protested to her butcher that his price for chops was too high and that the butcher shop across the street was lower. He told her to go to the shop across the street. She said that the butcher across the street did not have any chops. To which he replied that if he did not have any chops, he would sell them cheaper also.
If something does not apply to you (or your country, in this case), it is easy to support that thing, whatever it is.
If a tax requirement does not apply to me, or affect me, I can easily support it.
"If something does not
December 15, 2007 - 10:06 ET by GregE"If something does not apply to you (or your country, in this case), it is easy to support that thing, whatever it is.
If a tax requirement does not apply to me, or affect me, I can easily support it."
Exactly, because too many people don't do things based on principle, but moreso based on it's effect on themselves. I'm not a "wealthy" American, yet I don't say "yea tax them hard, it doesnt effect me." On the contrary, I say making someone pay a higher percentage just because they, in however way they have, have more income and/or net worth is not fair. By default, 20% tax on a rich person's money is more absolute money than 20% on a poor person's, but that's fair, but 35% on a rich person is not.
I don't smoke either, but I don't want government taxing cigarettes to pay for specific pet programs, though that tax won't effect me.
Correct, because next tax will hit you!!
December 15, 2007 - 10:10 ET by PawpawNGreat statement because the next tax may hit you or the next one. It just gives them ammo for the next tax. They say they fight to have you keep your freedoms, but they[the DIMS] keep trying to tax all your freedoms....heck now they want to tax your gas emissions[bodily].....!!
If you've never seen
December 15, 2007 - 10:21 ET by GregEIf you've never seen "Libery or Death," the DVD, I'd highly recommend it. http://www.historics...
It is a reenactment of the 2nd Virginia Convention (I saw the reenactment live and it's AWESOME!) in which Patrick Henry's famous speech was given.
But for this topic, as part of the program on DVD, scholars are talking about things taking place leading up to the Convention, one being the Boston Tea Party, which we all know was a protest on the tea tax Britain was to impose on the colonists. Well, one scholar mentions that the tea tax was not very high, in fact an increased price of the tea was to be more than the tax, but the colonist protest was because they UNDERSTOOD that if England imposed this tax, it would only give them that much more confidence to impose additional taxes on additional items/etc in the future, so on that PRINCIPLE alone, the colonists protested by dumping the tea into Boston harbor, and many many other places across the colonies. The Boston harbor is the only one that gets mentioned, but it was much more widespread.
Today, many have long lost that understanding and long lost their principles and let government run rough-shod over us at most every turn.
i'm fed up with this CO2 global warming scam
December 15, 2007 - 12:24 ET by lunaticcringeradiojust a litl fyi to anyone that doesn't understand the scientific facts about the CO2 scam because that seems to be the main arguement for this whole socialist spook story.
i know the debate is over but bare with me here.
the whole CO2 myth is linked to Venus and the way the second planet is so hot. why? because the atmosphere is made up of
Major components (by volume)
96.5% carbon dioxide (CO2)
3.5% nitrogen (N2)
Minor components (parts per million)
150 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
70 argon (Ar)
20 water vapor (H2O)
17 carbon monoxide (CO)
12 helium (He)
7 neon (Ne)
note there is no oxygen and a lot of sulfer dioxide, a litl key factor there considering the earth has much more oyxgen and almost no sulfer dioxide. plus as any moron knows Venus is a fish out of the pan and in the fire. so this is where the glob warms are getting their big CO2 spook story from. now if CO2 is the culprit for warmer temps and america needs to sign this anticapitolist punish the productive and reward the mooch socialist Kyoto treaty, then why doesn't all the CO2 on Mars have that lil planet smoking hot like Venus? oh no am i debating the global warming issue, is there a flaw in the scam about CO2, damn i thought they had us.
95.32%
2.7%
1.6%
0.13%
0.07%
0.03%
trace
carbon dioxide
nitrogen
argon
oxygen
carbon monoxide
water vapor
neon, krypton, xenon,
ozone, methane
uh oh, Mars has 1% less CO2 than Venus, yet it's a frozen world, but but but all the CO2, derrrr global warming, deeer capitolist america, uh global warming, eeerrr runaway Venus, deerr uhhhh global kyoto, uuuuhhh the american industrial empire, duh venus earth global warming.......the debate is over we told you, stop this debating.
if we are suppose to believe this CO2 crap then considering that since Mars is so far away from the sun compared to Venus, yet is almost exactly the same ratio of CO2 it should be as warm as earth instead of a fozen rust ball. but there is a big difference in the density of the both Venus and Mars, 92 milibars and 7 milibars respectively, a very important factor also, but that fact alone blows a huge hole in the global warming scam because the density of earths atmosphere is not changing maintaing about 29 millibars despite a steady increase in CO2 over the industrial era. another curious fact that defies global warming is the steady increase in CO2 and the fluctuating warm and cold periods during the industrial era. if CO2 were the culprit then we would only be experiencing a steady increase and these warm and cold swing woould not exist.
sorry i just got up this morning and read a stooopid report on how the us will try to be negotiated within 2009 on some version of a new kyoto scam and i just had to use my 10 year technical experience as a h-53 and blackhawk helicopter mechanic and hvac career, both of which tend to require a strong scientific knowledge in atmospheric science and i used my hands on knowledge and training to just noodle out some of the crap in this global warming scam and hopefully explain in basic terms help anyone who wants to confront a global warmist. so i think i quantify and qualify my knowledge and expertise as much more of an authority on the topic than leo decaprio or al gore any day of the week. cow farts, leo leo leo.
i dunno i just felt like venting this morning.
lunaticcringeradio