There are also economical flaws of the Protocol. The United States could only meet the Kyoto Protocols by rising natural resource prices. Gasoline prices would rise more than 50 cents per gallon. The Kyoto Protocol if established in the United States would implement a mandatory taxation costing citizens $2000 a year.
Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT correctively points out global warming as a fallacy. He wrote, "There is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them," in the Wall Street Journal. The fact that Global Warming, if it is a problem, is such a little problem that such high attention for the Kyoto Protocol leads to it being laced with alternative power hungry plans.
The seriousness of the hidden agenda of environmentalists must be considered in the prevention of the Kyoto intervening in our sovereignty. The Protocol -- it seems-- is not about global warming at all. It’s about advancing a political scheme of global government and punishing the US for its economic success. If we sign the Protocol the Kyoto inspectors, will be crawling all over America inspecting our emission levels in our factories and homes in violation of our Constitution. So the US should stay out of entangling alliances and should not endorse such Protocols that deteriorate our justifiable right of sovereignty.
Global Warming is Hot Air Jon Perdue No. 111, 15-21 March 1999
Source: James K. Glassman, "Forget Kyoto," from the American Enterprise Institute, January 2001.
Reason magazine had seven pages of its November 1997 issue with solutions to global warming at little cost
Since CO2 stimulates plant growth and lessens the need for water, we could also expect more bountiful harvests over the next couple of centuries. This is certainly not bad news to the developing nations of the world struggling to feed their populations. Far from being a self-induced disaster, global warming, as it may exist in the most benign incremental form, is the result of natural changes and could yield positive benefits. It is a predictable, quantifiable process. Since the temperature of the Holocene Maximum is close to what global warming models project for the Earth by 2100, how mankind faired during the era is instructive. The most striking fact is that it was during this period that the Agricultural Revolution began in the Middle East, laying the foundation for civilization. Yet, Greenhouse theory proponents claim the planet will experience severe environmental distress if the climate gets that warm again. Leading climate scientist Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory says we may be in for an additional 1.8 degrees F of warming over the next few centuries, regardless of Man's activities. The result would be warmer nighttime and winter temperatures, fewer frosts and longer growing seasons.
Stephen Schneider, a Stanford scientist and participant at Clinton and Gore's Global Climate Change Roundtable last July, has said that when it comes to global warming it is "journalistically irresponsible to present both sides." He also stated "[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest." It is worth noting that 25 years ago this same Schneider was vociferously denying global warming. Even a tenfold increase in human production of carbon dioxide, he wrote, "which at the present rate of input is not expected within the next several thousand years" is "unlikely to produce a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth." Indeed, "the doubling of carbon dioxide" — which is what Kyoto is trying so desperately to prevent — "would produce a temperature change of less than one degree [centigrade]."
Schneider argued then that the real threat was global cooling: The production of aerosols screening earth from the sun could produce "a surface decrease of the mean temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees centigrade," which "if sustained over a period of several years could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." Disregarding the obvious annihilation of Schneider's credibility for a moment, take note that this was no offhanded comment. This was a paper in the prestigious journal Science, complete with equations containing a gaudy excess of exponents and Greek subscripts.
In July 1998 Vice President Al Gore referred to ''more than 2,600 scientists ''who ''have signed a letter about global climatic disruption.'' Last month, Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner scolded CNN ''Crossfire'' host John Sununu by saying, ''I am surprised that you would reject the word of 2,500 international acclaimed scientists.''
But just who makes up this army of experts? That's what Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, a free-market think tank, wondered. It turns out that Gore and Browner were referring to a cautionary letter by the environmental group Ozone Action, signed by 2,611 people with quite varied backgrounds. The CSE Foundation did some research on those backgrounds and found a few experts on weather and climate - but not many. It also found lawyers, two landscape architects, a philosopher, a dermatologist and a diplomat. In all, the foundation found that only 182, or 11 per cent, of the signatories were in specialties that might have some bearing on the study of climate. And most of these were in geology, oceanography, geography and physics - fields that focus mainly on other subjects. Just a handful — 15 — clearly specialized in climate, weather or other atmospheric science.
