Bush Wrongly Blamed for America’s Non-participation in Kyoto

As climate alarmists around the world gather at a tropical resort in Bali to discuss the liberal bogeyman known as global warming, it is a metaphysical certitude green media will cheerlead the event while distorting science and history to blame all the planet's supposed ills on George W. Bush.

A fine example of this was a piece posted at Yahoo Friday evening which in its very first paragraph completely misrepresented the facts behind the Kyoto Protocol, and, especially, who was in the White House when this treaty was agreed upon and signed.

As reported by Agence France-Presse (h/t Tim Graham, emphasis added throughout):

US President George W. Bush, who rejected the Kyoto protocol, remains opposed to international constraints on curbing carbon emissions despite growing isolation ahead of a world climate summit.

Like so many media outlets, AFP was either being intentionally deceitful, or thoroughly ignorant of the facts. Let's clue them in to reality, shall we?

The Treaty was agreed upon on December 11, 1997, opened for signatures by countries wishing to participate on March 16, 1998, and closed for such signatures on March 15, 1999.

It appears AFP - and, since this is a consistent error by media, most press outlets - don't understand that William Jefferson Clinton was president of the United States when the period for signatures on this treaty closed.

Moreover, same as virtually all press outlets, AFP ignored the July 25, 1997, Byrd-Hagel Resolution in the Senate which stated (emphasis added):

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

This resolution passed 95 to 0. As a result, former President Clinton never brought this Treaty in front of Congress for its approval knowing full well he wouldn't get it.

Yet, this was not how AFP presented this to its readers on Friday, an error consistently made by press outlets whenever the Kyoto Protocol is discussed.

In fact, look at this sentence from this AFP piece:

Bush's administration has called Kyoto "fatally flawed," and said it would cripple the US economy.

Now, look at this sentence from the Byrd-Hagel resolution which 95 Senators agreed on:

"would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States."

Sound familiar, AFP? Even worse, one of the Senators who signed that resolution in 1997 was presented by the AFP as being a strong environmental proponent:

The chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Democrat Barbara Boxer, plans to send to the Senate for a vote next week a bill that would call for a 70 percent reduction in pollutants by 2050.

Boxer plans to attend the Bali conference along with other lawmakers who are pressing for changes in US environmental policy. And legislators are not the only ones beginning to shift stance.

Hey AFP: How about presenting to your readers the fact that Boxer was one of the 95 Senators in 1997 who basically demanded then President Clinton not ratify this Treaty?

Oh, that's right. This would be too much like journalism.

Sadly, Americans should get used to such disgraceful misrepresentations and omissions of history the next two weeks as media shill for the climate alarmists meeting in Bali.