When the Kyoto Protocol termination date of the 31st December 2012 passed without any valid amendment, I thought it was a fairly simple and obvious fact that the commitment had ended. That didn’t preclude a later amendment, but legally there was no Kyoto Commitment to reduce CO2.
But I had not appreciated the ability of government to lie and convince the media that black is white. And I hadn’t realised how the media are either gullible in the extreme and swallow this kind of nonsense, or that they are complicit in the lie.
So, I have to admit, that for anyone who has not read the treaty and did not follow what actually happened it would have appeared that the official statements that there had been an agreement to continue Kyoto meant that it had not ended.
But finally I have been vindicated! The press were lied to. The public were lied to. For, in what appears to be a translation of Pravda I read in the article “Most recent intrigues of Kyoto Protocol”
“The Kyoto Protocol has become that document in the international politics that world leaders prefer not to think about. The issue is particularly painful for the U.S., China and India. Will there be an extension of the protocol, or are the interested players wasting their time? This question was raised in “Point of View” project by Doctor of Technical Sciences Igor Ostretsov.
Igor, it seems that the Kyoto Protocol, an important international instrument on the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has been forgotten. Why has it happened?
“It’s true. After all, what is the history of the Kyoto Protocol? It appeared in the mid-1990s, Russia ratified it only in 2005, and even then with difficulty. In 2012 it has expired. Then there were several meetings on its extension. As far as I know, only one thing has been agreed upon – to create the final version of the protocol by 2015 so that it is ready to operate in 2020.
I doubt this will be anything more than a personal victory.
BBC Question Time: Please give scientists proper representation on Question Time.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/bbc-question-time-please-give-scientists-proper-representation-on-question-time?share_id=vMtEayZwbM&utm_campaign=invite_page_mobile&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition
Kyoto Protocol ended, but they are behaving as if it didn’t; proof that they can get away with anything = proof that they haven’t got a mature opposition.
What was so crazy is that the opposition was so weak that the journalists didn’t have anyone to tell them that the opposition were not massively funded oil lackies (which is precisely what the pro movement have been).
It gives us a real insight into what it would have been like in the witch hunting days. The more successful we were … the more it was proof we were funded by BIG oil, and the less successful we were the more they could say we were funded by BIG oil without any opposition.
And all the time the devil (aka BIG oil) was whispering in the ear of the witch finders from their wind lobby divisions and their “lets make the price of oil as high as possible by carbon taxes” divisions.
I was going to say “you couldn’t make it up” … but I realised that it had all happened before and would likely all happen again in another disguise.
Mike, journalist don’t want to be told by the skeptics; there is branch for the British Guardian / Australian section, after two comments I made, I was blacklisted = it’s Soviet model propaganda.
Which scientists are any good? Professor John Ashton for instance, with his call for a lowering of the age of consent? Because 16 is such a confusing age to set it at but 15 would draw a line in the sand and protect kids from STDs and teenage pregnancies.
Or Professor Nutt? The guy who thought we should legalise drugs because alcohol is so harmful and then surprise surprise has gone on to create one. He rightfully observes that we have a drink problem but doesn’t spot our addictive mentality which is the root cause, not any one substance as such.
Or Mickey Mann, he of the dodgy hockey sticks?
Frankly I suspect any scientist who seeks to appear on Question Time has something to sell and is no more credible than any other mouth flapper who turns up. If we think they need to be on to provide balance, how about an obligatory engineer? Or GP? Or secretary?
Kyoto and all things green feels like the deliberations of the crashed B Arkers in HHGTTG. Any minute I expect some frustrated environmentalist to demand ‘Well what colour would you paint the windmills?’ They’re so used to making impossible demands and some other mug making things work. They can’t understand why they’re no closer to cutting CO2 than they were 15 years ago. A load of money and a lifetime of meetings have been wasted and they’re further back than ever. It must be very confusing for them.
You’ve got to wonder if they’ll ever admit to failure, never mind wonder if they’re on the wrong track.
Not even the supposedly important task of cutting CO2 is makining them re-evaluate and/or seek answers.
TinyCO2: ‘Well what colour would you paint the windmills?’ They’re so used to making impossible demands and some other mug making things work.
That sums up the kind of comments I’ve seen posted on the Salby thread exactly. Just keep demanding that we answer questions, and then when we honestly say how little is known … they won’t accept that response.
It happens to us all. A long while back, I got banned from the Guardian for mentioning that Phil Jones had broken FOI laws – when the information commissioner had said as much. It was quite blatant censorship of facts they did not want people to hear.
And isn’t it true that those media who say they are most in favour of free speech like the Guardian, Independent and BBC are the first to curtail it when they don’t like what is being said?
There are none so blind as those like these media who do not wish to see the censorship on global warming.
ScSc, I think you misunderstood why some are asking you questions. They’re not expecting you to explain something to them, they’re trying to work out if you understand sufficiently well so as to be able to answer the question. Just because you don’t know the answer, doesn’t mean that an answer isn’t known (or at least, that there isn’t a scientifically credible and well-founded answer).
Louise, I understand where you are coming from, but as the BBC have no engineers at all on question time and as scientists have failed to rein back on the malpractice in climate research, it would be inappropriate for me to endorse this petition.
But whether or not I agree with you on this, well done for doing something.