# Kyoto Treaty comes into force



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 16, 2005)

OSLO (Reuters) - A world plan to fight global warming has come into force, feted by its backers as a lifeline for the planet amid sniping at the United States for pulling out.

After years of delays, the U.N. Kyoto Protocol on curbing emissions of heat-trapping gases blamed for disrupting the climate took effect at 0500 GMT (6 a.m. British time) on Wednesday with muted celebrations for a deal Washington dismisses as an economic straitjacket.

Green groups marked Kyoto by protesting outside U.S. embassies, by interrupting oil trading on London's International Petroleum Exchange and by carving fast-melting ice sculptures of kangaroos in Australia.

"Climate change is a global problem. It requires a concerted global response," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in remarks beamed to the ancient Japanese city of Kyoto where the pact was signed in 1997.


http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new..._01_JON550128_RTRUKOC_0_ENVIRONMENT-KYOTO.xml


----------



## 5stringJeff (Feb 16, 2005)

China pollutes as much as the US does, yet the US gets the blame?  Not surprised, but it's still ridiculous.


----------



## Bonnie (Feb 17, 2005)

Climate change is a global problem. It requires a concerted global response," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in remarks beamed to the ancient Japanese city of Kyoto where the pact was signed in 1997.

"I call on the world community to be bold, to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol and to act quickly in taking the next steps," he said. "There is no time to lose."

So this is what takes on importance to Annan??


----------



## Zhukov (Feb 17, 2005)

I sure hope they don't sanction us.


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

I hope the US won't have to come to being sanctioned, hopefully they'll sign on at some point, but I think extra time should be given to the US to comply to the kyoto treaty, if they do sign on. They are way too many changes to be made and that takes time and money... As for china I don't think they pollute as much, close enough, and they will definitly pass the US in the near future but not as of yet


----------



## Huckleburry (Feb 17, 2005)

Contrary to popular belief, the Kyoto Protocol would probably benefit the American economy more than any other nations. Let us examine why this is true. First, America already has environmental controls. These controls internalize the cost of environmental damage so that the equilibrium condition accurately reflects the MSC and MSB. Naturally, this increases the cost of production (and thus the cost of American manufactures). This increase in cost is an oft cited reason for trade protection (just give workingmans post's a search) from the export sector for trade protection. The Kyoto protocol would internalize these costs for all countries and therefore negate the need for trade protection. American exports benefit from a truly level playing field and the world benefits from both free trade and a cleaner environment. Second, the majority of environmental controls belong are high tech. Carbon scrubbers, living machines, and hydrogen fuel cells all require a high level of technical know-how and capital equipment. Ironically, the high tech sector is one of the few in which the US still maintains a comparative advantage over NICs. In addition, the majority of the R & D required to produce new devices happens in the United States. Thus the Kyoto Protocol enhances our trade position by requiring nations to use controls primarily developed and produced within the United States. Lastly taking leadership in regards to the Kyoto protocol gives the United States ample leverage in negotiating trade agreements with other countries (think China). Rather than resort to overt protectionism we can link access to our markets to compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. Better still, those countries found in noncompliance will not solely be punished by the US but by all member nations, including a sizeable portion of the EU bringing to bear an enormous amount of economic pressure on the delinquent state. To resist the Kyoto Protocol is to deny American business the opportunity to do what they do best namely innovate and invent. I say cry havoc and let slip the dogs of American ingenuity. 
Cheers
Huck


----------



## Annie (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> I hope the US won't have to come to being sanctioned, hopefully they'll sign on at some point, but I think extra time should be given to the US to comply to the kyoto treaty, if they do sign on. They are way too many changes to be made and that takes time and money... As for china I don't think they pollute as much, close enough, and they will definitly pass the US in the near future but not as of yet



I do believe Z was being facetious. Sanction away, who are WE to have a say in what treaties we sign? Now the 'international body' is becoming fascist?


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I do believe Z was being facetious. Sanction away, who are WE to have a say in what treaties we sign? Now the 'international body' is becoming fascist?


Well I think it's an important enough issue to eventually force sanctions on the US later down the road, if there is one thing the interational body should pressure the US in signing it's the Kyoto treaty, but I do understand that it can't be an emmediat change...just not possible...but not signing on eventually is just so wrong...you know it


----------



## Annie (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Well I think it's an important issue to force sanctions on the US later down the road, if there is one thing the interational body should pressure the US in signing it's the Kyoto treaty, but I do understand that it can't be an emmediat change...just not possible...but not signing on eventually is just so wrong...you know it



Signing it WOULD be wrong. Just like France, we deal with our best interests. Senate vote to deny ratification: 95-0.


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Huckleburry said:
			
		

> Huck


If thats true than why not sign on?


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Signing it WOULD be wrong. Just like France, we deal with our best interests. Senate vote to deny ratification: 95-0.


I know it's in your best interest...that makes a lot of sense...I totally understand that...but I think the outcome of not signing on is awful


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 17, 2005)

have not seen it in this thread but do you know why the us did not sign on?


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> have not seen it in this thread but do you know why the us did not sign on?


Well as far as I know it's not in their interest...would cost way way way too much money...slow down the economy, and it would probably take ages for it to be efficient


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 17, 2005)

i do not belive that that was the stated reason for not signing on


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> i do not belive that that was the stated reason for not signing on


No, but we all know why, makes as much sense as anything, just common reason


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> No, but we all know why, makes as much sense as anything, just common reason



i don't know why please tell me...


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> i don't know why please tell me...


I just said...economic reasons...


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> I just said...economic reasons...



why didn't india sign on?


----------



## Annie (Feb 17, 2005)

More than just economic. There's also the issue of junk science and others. 

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 17, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> More than just economic. There's also the issue of junk science and others.
> 
> http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm



economically it will hurt everyone, science is a draw ... the treaty does not do anything to address the indias of the world ....


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> More than just economic. There's also the issue of junk science and others.
> 
> http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm


Well I can understand that people doubt it...obviously we can't see in the future...but come on...common sense here...pollution = bad things!!!


----------



## Annie (Feb 17, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> economically it will hurt everyone, science is a draw ... the treaty does not do anything to address the indias of the world ....



It's still open to debate whether or not this is even an issue. That's why I posted all those scientist!  :halo:


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 17, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> It's still open to debate whether or not this is even an issue. That's why I posted all those scientist!  :halo:



i meant the science is a draw from the perspective of that it is subjective

my concern is this if you only put restrictions on some countries and not other countries then guess what....everyuone will open plants in the non-restricted countries and the air water or whatever will still be poulted...the us said acroos the board enforcment or we aint joing up...gues what all the folks that have factories in india where ther won't be restrictions signed on...sound familiar


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> It's still open to debate whether or not this is even an issue. That's why I posted all those scientist!  :halo:


Thats true but if all the major poluters agree to sign on than thats already that much good done...and say if the US signs on, I don't see why India couldn't be pressures in signing on etc...


----------



## Annie (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thats true but if all the major poluters agree to sign on than thats already that much good done...and say if the US signs on, I don't see why India couldn't be pressures in signing on etc...



That is nonsense.


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> That is nonsense.


What is? Pressure...like that hasn't been done for other issues?


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

I think that the US not signing on is giving the message that "hey, they aren't cooperating, why should we?" well thats how I see it...if the US signs on than other countries would have to sign on...if pressure is put upon them


----------



## Annie (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> What is? Pressure...like that hasn't been done for other issues?



Skip the whole country issue. Deal with your supposition. 

1. I agree there isn't scientific agreement that greenhouse gases are generated by the factors cited in Kyoto. 

2. Even if the holes in the ozone, etc., were created by said gases, there is not agreement that Kyoto really addresses the problem or that that it isn't a naturally occuring phenomena.

3. Regardless of whether any of the above is true or false, let's do it anyways. 

4. While 'we do it anyways' let's pressure everyone we can to do it anyways.

5. Believe it or not, this is not to be taken as a joke. 

 :teeth:


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> I think that the US not signing on is giving the message that "hey, they aren't cooperating, why should we?" well thats how I see it...if the US signs on than other countries would have to sign on...if pressure is put upon them



not true ... read the treaty ... it says developing countries do not have to comply ... developing nations are some of the biggest offenders

the us was preasuring others to include all countries ... close the loop hole ... the us was opposed by countires that have factories and or major financial interest in developing nations ... thus the exception for developing nations ... the us said screw it


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> not true ... read the treaty ... it says developing countries do not have to comply ... developing nations are some of the biggest offenders
> 
> the us was preasuring others to include all countries ... close the loop hole ... the us was opposed by countires that have factories and or major financial interest in developing nations ... thus the exception for developing nations ... the us said screw it


Well than they should redo it and include everyone...


----------



## Said1 (Feb 17, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> not true ... read the treaty ... it says developing countries do not have to comply ... developing nations are some of the biggest offenders
> 
> the us was preasuring others to include all countries ... close the loop hole ... the us was opposed by countires that have factories and or major financial interest in developing nations ... thus the exception for developing nations ... the us said screw it



And world trade bodys claim it will it will hinder economic growth in LDCs.


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> And world trade bodys claim it will it will hinder economic growth in LDCs.


Yeah I can see that happening...but countries like India and china are the most important...their economy is booming...so they would suffer the least out of DC's
Other LDC's don't factor in as heavily


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 17, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> And world trade bodys claim it will it will hinder economic growth in LDCs.



so the poor should be able to trash the environment but the rich can't?


----------



## Said1 (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Other LDC's don't factor in as heavily



Of course they are. They are the poorest, and most ill equipped when it comes to protecting the environments and controlling emissions.


----------



## Said1 (Feb 17, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> so the poor should be able to trash the environment but the rich can't?



Stiffling economic development will always ensure that they do nothing to protect their environments. Not that they're doing much now mind you.


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Of course they are. They are the poorest, and most ill equipped when it comes to protecting the environments and controlling emissions.


Totally agree with you, but was is that compared to the additon of US+china+india+russia+ lets say Europe?


----------



## Said1 (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Totally agree with you, but was is that compared to the additon of US+china+india+russia+ lets say Europe?



Most of those nations have the means to aquire technology as it arises. Although, some European countries such as Ireland are already facing penalties for not meeting their agreed terms of Koyoto.


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Most of those nations have the means to aquire technology as it arises. Although, some European countries such as Ireland are already facing penalties for not meeting their agreed terms of Koyoto.


Do u mean "Means to aquire technology" to reduce pollution??? Well if thats true than apply it and sign on...Ireland isn't cosidered a rich country in europe...they have economic problems...although in better shape than say 20 years ago


----------



## j07950 (Feb 17, 2005)

Alright I've got to go...I'm well tired and I've had a long day already...oh and stop giving me rep points, I've never had this many...it feels weird!!!


----------



## Said1 (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Do u mean "Means to aquire technology" to reduce pollution??? Well if thats true than apply it and sign on...Ireland isn't cosidered a rich country in europe...they have economic problems...although in better shape than say 20 years ago



I said "as it arises".


----------



## Said1 (Feb 17, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Ireland isn't cosidered a rich country in europe...they have economic problems...although in better shape than say 20 years ago



And yet they signed on anyway, knowing any increases in outputs as a result of increases in production (which is what happened) could put them over their limits. They are facing pentalites in the billions of dollars.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Feb 17, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> And yet they signed on anyway, knowing any increases in outputs as a result of increases in production (which is what happened) could put them over their limits. They are facing pentalites in the billions of dollars.



When I heard China was going to be exempted, I decided myself there is NO WAY IN HELL the USA should sign up.  Have you ever been to China?  The air and the ground and eveywhere is filthy as hell.  There was no reason why they should be exempted from the treaty for even one day.


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 17, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Stiffling economic development will always ensure that they do nothing to protect their environments. Not that they're doing much now mind you.



the problem is that the non-developing nations will build or continue to run factories in the developing nations that wreck the environment


----------



## Said1 (Feb 17, 2005)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> When I heard China was going to be exempted, I decided myself there is NO WAY IN HELL the USA should sign up.  Have you ever been to China?  The air and the ground and eveywhere is filthy as hell.  There was no reason why they should be exempted from the treaty for even one day.



With current rates of production in China as it is now, they'd never be able meet output limits, never mind 10 yrs from now.


----------



## Said1 (Feb 17, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> the problem is that the non-developing nations will build or continue to run factories in the developing nations that wreck the environment



Unless developing nations enforce or toughen up environmental standards within the nation they govern this will probably continue to happen. Excluding them from world markets is not the answer either.


----------



## Bonnie (Feb 17, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> the problem is that the non-developing nations will build or continue to run factories in the developing nations that wreck the environment



I agree
The two biggest offenders being China and India with coal emmissions.  Right now China and India together make up about 90% of greenhouse gas emissions, so how is it the U.S and other more developed nations have to foot the bill and assume responsibility???


----------



## freeandfun1 (Feb 17, 2005)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> I agree
> The two biggest offenders being China and India with coal emmissions.  Right now China and India together make up about 90% of greenhouse gas emissions, so how is it the U.S and other more developed nations have to foot the bill and assume responsibility???



Everybody keeps talk'n about how China is kick'n our ass economically, stealing our jobs, etc., etc., yet then the libs want to turn around and enable them to do so by putting restrictions on us that do not apply to them.  How in the hell do the liberals think this stuff up?


----------



## onedomino (Feb 18, 2005)

Kyoto and Lunatic Fringe Protests:



> *Kyoto Protest Beaten Back by Inflamed Petrol Traders*
> By Laura Peek and Liz Chong
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1487741,00.html
> ...


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 18, 2005)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> I agree
> The two biggest offenders being China and India with coal emmissions.  Right now China and India together make up about 90% of greenhouse gas emissions, so how is it the U.S and other more developed nations have to foot the bill and assume responsibility???



bingo!  (i hate this spred the rep rule)


----------



## Annie (Feb 18, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> What is? Pressure...like that hasn't been done for other issues?



You are probably NOT going to get what you are saying.

"Well it's NOT proven, but let's do it anyways. We'll all feel better because we tried..."


----------



## taff (Feb 18, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Kyoto and Lunatic Fringe Protests:



I saw this on sky news.Even when they were surrendering, curled in balls on the floor they were still having the boot put into them.They should stick to hugging tree's on the weekend.


----------



## Huckleburry (Feb 18, 2005)

The economic assesment of the Kyoto Protocol are wrong. I posted on this earlier in this thread so I will not repeat the argument. Moreover, the science behind it is good, that it is only energy company scientists discrediting it should raise some alarm.


----------



## CSM (Feb 18, 2005)

Huckleburry said:
			
		

> The economic assesment of the Kyoto Protocol are wrong. I posted on this earlier in this thread so I will not repeat the argument. Moreover, the science behind it is good, that it is only energy company scientists discrediting it should raise some alarm.



 Here is what you posted:

Contrary to popular belief, the Kyoto Protocol would probably benefit the American economy more than any other nations. Let us examine why this is true. First, America already has environmental controls. These controls internalize the cost of environmental damage so that the equilibrium condition accurately reflects the MSC and MSB. Naturally, this increases the cost of production (and thus the cost of American manufactures).  This increase in cost is an oft cited reason for trade protection (just give workingmans post's a search) from the export sector for trade protection. The Kyoto protocol would internalize these costs for all countries and therefore negate the need for trade protection.  American exports benefit from a truly level playing field and the world benefits from both free trade and a cleaner environment. Second, the majority of environmental controls belong are high tech. Carbon scrubbers, living machines, and hydrogen fuel cells all require a high level of technical know-how and capital equipment. Ironically, the high tech sector is one of the few in which the US still maintains a comparative advantage over NICs. In addition, the majority of the R & D required to produce new devices happens in the United States. Thus the Kyoto Protocol enhances our trade position by requiring nations to use controls primarily developed and produced within the United States. Lastly taking leadership in regards to the Kyoto protocol gives the United States ample leverage in negotiating trade agreements with other countries (think China). Rather than resort to overt protectionism we can link access to our markets to compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. Better still, those countries found in noncompliance will not solely be punished by the US but by all member nations, including a sizeable portion of the EU bringing to bear an enormous amount of economic pressure on the delinquent state. To resist the Kyoto Protocol is to deny American business the opportunity to do what they do best namely innovate and invent. I say cry havoc and let slip the dogs of American ingenuity. 
Cheers
Huck

The red is my highlight. 

The problem with Kyoto as I see it is first that it raises costs for US manufacurers thus making the cost for US goods overseas higher...not good in my book. 

Second, your premise is that ALL nations would be a willing participant. It ignores the fact that many nations would be exempt by the terms of the treaty. Their manufactured goods would cost less to produce and be more attractive to consumers as well as investors.

Until ALL nations are under the Kyoto protocol; it is simply a mechanism to denigrate the US. The fact that nations can "sell" their quotas is a load of crap too.


----------



## Said1 (Feb 18, 2005)

CSM said:
			
		

> The problem with Kyoto as I see it is first that it raises costs for US manufacurers thus making the cost for US goods overseas higher...not good in my book.



Also puts limits on production, as would have been the case in Ireland, had they complied with the protocol.



> Until ALL nations are under the Kyoto protocol; it is simply a mechanism to denigrate the US. The fact that nations can "sell" their quotas is a load of crap too.



If you're refering to GATT, it needs to be updated, or scrapped altogether.


----------



## CSM (Feb 18, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> If you're refering to GATT, it needs to be updated, or scrapped altogether.


It is my understanding from reading the Kyoto documents that countries who meet their "quota" or less can sell their excess tonnage of allowable pollution (specifically carbon dioxide for example) can sell the excess to other countries. Also, by terms outlined in the documents, certain countries (particularly "poor and emerging" industrial nations) can be exempted for a certain period of time from the conditions of the treaty.


----------



## Said1 (Feb 18, 2005)

CSM said:
			
		

> It is my understanding from reading the Kyoto documents that countries who meet their "quota" or less can sell their excess tonnage of allowable pollution (specifically carbon dioxide for example) can sell the excess to other countries. Also, by terms outlined in the documents, certain countries (particularly "poor and emerging" industrial nations) can be exempted for a certain period of time from the conditions of the treaty.



Oops, my bad.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 18, 2005)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Everybody keeps talk'n about how China is kick'n our ass economically, stealing our jobs, etc., etc., yet then the libs want to turn around and enable them to do so by putting restrictions on us that do not apply to them.  How in the hell do the liberals think this stuff up?



Because they're pro-Communist.


----------



## Bonnie (Feb 18, 2005)

> Until ALL nations are under the Kyoto protocol; it is simply a mechanism to denigrate the US. The fact that nations can "sell" their quotas is a load of crap too.




Absolutely!!  Other nations love to dump on the U.S. for environmental damage while it is the U.S and Japan that are staying ahead of the curve in technology to clean things up.  And it is U.S. companies that have been spending the most money, some to the point of going bankrupt to keep up with restrictions.  Since the 80's our contribution to global warming has gone way down, and yet nations like the Netherlands that are the size of postage stamps continually criticize us not the countries that are actually causing most of the problem and doing nothing about it.


----------



## Huckleburry (Feb 18, 2005)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> while it is the U.S and Japan that are staying ahead of the curve in technology to clean things up.


 Exactly it is to our advantage to bring the Kyoto protocol into being because it demands usage of items in which we have a comparative advantage (more sales). Also if the United States signs the treaty they can use it as a trade barrier giving MFN status to the countries that have also signed it. By applying this rule blindly we will be defended infront of the WTO as a nation concerned about enviormental damage. Lastly externalized costs are not free. Rather they are paid for by society at large rather than the producers responsible for the externalities. Kyoto protects our interests rather than endagers them. Also....suppose the world went off oil, who do you think has the best chance of developing an alternative system? Hint: it's not China


----------



## Huckleburry (Feb 18, 2005)

GATT has been scraped it's called the WTO now and it is a damn fine orginization. One of the better institutions created by the USA


----------



## Said1 (Feb 18, 2005)

Huckleburry said:
			
		

> GATT has been scraped it's called the WTO now and it is a damn fine orginization. One of the better institutions created by the USA


It hasnt been totally scrapped yet, but I do agree, the WTO rocks!


----------



## Bonnie (Feb 18, 2005)

Huckleburry said:
			
		

> Exactly it is to our advantage to bring the Kyoto protocol into being because it demands usage of items in which we have a comparative advantage (more sales). Also if the United States signs the treaty they can use it as a trade barrier giving MFN status to the countries that have also signed it. By applying this rule blindly we will be defended infront of the WTO as a nation concerned about enviormental damage. Lastly externalized costs are not free. Rather they are paid for by society at large rather than the producers responsible for the externalities. Kyoto protects our interests rather than endagers them. Also....suppose the world went off oil, who do you think has the best chance of developing an alternative system? Hint: it's not China



Agreed, IF, China were to compensate us for that technology, right now they are killing their people in their insatiable thirst for energy to satisfy their manufacturing output, with very unsafe mining practices.  Even though the govt there has made so called laws protecting the miners, they are never enforced.  Improving our standing with the WTO by extending the olive branch sounds nice on paper, but the only way for the U.S to have any advantage in this is to have fairer trade practices with China while they compensate us monetarily for our technology and implementation, and that will only happen if they are truly serious about keeping their end of the bargain, which Im very suspect as of now.


----------



## KarlMarx (Feb 19, 2005)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> Climate change is a global problem. It requires a concerted global response," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in remarks beamed to the ancient Japanese city of Kyoto where the pact was signed in 1997.
> 
> "I call on the world community to be bold, to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol and to act quickly in taking the next steps," he said. "There is no time to lose."
> 
> So this is what takes on importance to Annan??



The fact that the Kyoto Treaty and Kofi Annan are being mentioned in the same sentence shouldn't surprise anyone. One deals with hot air, the other one is full of it.

Sure, the Earth's climate is warming up, no doubt. But then, it has done so many times over the centuries. That doesn't mean that man is responsible (I'm sure that we may contribute somewhat, but not as much as is being hyped). In fact the fact that the Earth did warm up several thousand years ago is what caused civilization to flourish. Up to that point, humans were just eeking out an existence and trying to stay warm.


----------



## Annie (Feb 19, 2005)

It's past time for 'scientific data' to be called on transparency:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314



> Hockey Stick on Ice
> Politicizing the science of global warming.
> 
> Friday, February 18, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
> ...


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 5, 2016)

.


----------

