The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming
The Kyoto Protocol is based on a report by the U.N. sponsored IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control). This report, as published by the U.N., is often quoted as proof that global warming is occurring, that productive, industrialized economies are responsible, and something must be done.
However the U.N. published IPCC report differs from the final, peer-reviewed report that was actually delivered to the U.N. by the 2,000 scientist on the panel. According to Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, the IPCC report was changed by deleting key statements from the conclusion.
In his article "A Major Deception on Global Warming" (Wall Street Journal, 12 June, 1996, p. A16), Dr. Seitz states that "key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version... more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report (the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate) were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text."
Passages deleted from the published version include:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gasses."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed to date) to anthropogenic (man-made) causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
The report, as approved by the scientists, concluded that If the climate is changing, there is no evidence that human activity has contributed. One of the authors of the IPCC report, Keith Shine, explained these changes "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report."
Robert Reinstein, former chief State Department negotiator on the climate treaty agrees that the wording of the summary was negotiated at length by international delegations. "Because of this," he said, "the summary must be considered purely a political document, not a scientific one."
The Questions
Is the the globe warming? The temperature of the earth fluctuates, as this chart from the University of Michigan shows, we are currently in the cool range of these fluctuations and trending towards a warmer climate. Fluctuations occurred before humans inhabited the earth. The earth has usually been warmer than it is now. Yes, the globe is warming.
Are humans the cause? Natural climate changes occur because of plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions, solar activity and the earth's orbital variations. Humans were obviously not the cause of past climate changes and are probably not the cause of current changes. Plant decay, volcanic activity, and other natural processes release around 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, compared to an estimated 7 billion tons produced by human activity.
What can we do? We may have to recognize that we are powerless over global climate changes just as we are powerless over plate tectonics, volcanoes, solar activity, hurricanes, rain and drought. Scientist and the U.N. have always recognized an opportunity to get their hands on the U.S. taxpayer's wallet.
An international bureaucracy that sponsors a report, changes the report to state the opposite of the scientific conclusions (or, in this case, lack of conclusions) and then requires only 34 of 191 member nations to comply does appear to have an agenda based on something other than science.
I suggest the U.N.'s time and our money would be better spent developing the economies, fighting disease, and supporting democracy and freedom in Africa, instead of attempting to restrain the economies of countries that provide the tools and technologies that advance humanity.
| Junkscience.com - Counting up the cost of the Kyoto Protocol |
To get activity on the clock JunkScience.com had to use billionths of one degree, which cannot be measured as a global mean. That represents about $100,000 per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." For just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C.
The widely acknowledged "saving" (amount of warming avoided) potential for complete implementation of Kyoto is ~0.07 °C by the year 2050. Skeptics (e.g. Pat Michaels) and advocates (e.g. Kevin Trenberth) alike agree to this figure. Thus the potentially "saved" temperature figure is simply 0.07 °C/45 (the amount per year assuming a linear progression) further divided down to an accumulation per second. Granted, this is not likely a very accurate nor realistic representation because we don't know the absolute mean surface temperature of the planet within ±0.7 °C anyway.
The cost values use the optimistic estimate of $150 billion per annum compliance cost. This figure is divided to an amount per second and accumulated in 0.05 second increments.
The above figures do not include the billions allocated to global warming research ($2 billion per annum in the US alone), alternative energy research ($3 billion in the US), public education campaigns, public monies (your tax dollars) directed to NGOs (Non-Government Organizations), or public donations to various foundations and charities. - junkscience.com
