With Australia, it would make 138 countries ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Obviously, someone must think reducing greenhouse gas emissions will do some good. Here's the stated objective, "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
There is just something with the global warmings alarmists that makes them disregard simple reason. Climatologists
want to stir up hysteria because it keeps the money pouring into their profession. When the hysteria goes away, so do their funds. It is in their financial interest (the most powerful of all) to keep pushing these doom and gloom scenarios.
So the fact that "some people" who have economic reasons to push this treaty think it might do some good isn't really a powerful argument for it.
The second thing is its objective of "stabilizing greenhouse gases" doesn't really have an effect on temperature changes. This has been thoroughly exhausted in the old Global Warming thread. For your convenience, I have copied something palerider wrote a while back:
We know from over a half a million years worth of ice cores, and about 600 million years worth of sedimentary data that rising CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are a result of increased temperatures, not a cause. The computer models suggest that a small change in atmospheric CO2 can cause a change in global temperature, but there is no actual data to support that. If you are interested in seeing the record so far on the accuracy of computer modeling here is a comprehensive study.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Computer modeling is notoriously inaccurate. When they can't make a model that accurately reflects what the temperature was and is, and how it was and is affected by various forcings, how do you put any trust at all in what these models are predicting for the future?
The reason that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lag behind a rise in temperature is that warm water can not hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the mean temperature rises, the oceans rise and in turn, release held CO2, thus raising the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Or, we can bury our head in the sand. The American Petroleum Institute would love that. For that matter big oil is the guiding force in US foreign and domestic policy, why should failure to sign the pact be a surprise?
Hahaha, the three entities most hated by liberals: Wal Mart, drug companies, and oil companies. Every ill in the world starts with one of these three.
