|
|
|
|
It Isn't Settled: The Three Sciences of Kyoto Politics
|
 |
2. december 2005
Af Kimble F. Ainslie, Ph.D., Sr. Fellow Copenhagen Institute & President Nordex Research.
|
|
|
Imagine the consternation in the ranks of neo-socialists and climate change fighters when Prime Minister Tony Blair declared on September 16, 2005 at Bill Clinton's Global Initiative conference that the Kyoto Protocol is dead. It is one thing for skeptics at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations or the Canadian Council of Chief Executives to pour cold water on the goals of Kyoto, but entirely another for the Western leader of the global warming morality politics to throw in the towel after the cold shower. Indeed, so traumatized were the international media in support of the "nescience" (non-knowledge) of global warming that they simply did not report Blair's capitulation when it became news.
Before Blair's declaration on the death knell of Kyoto, the morality politics practised by the "priestly class" on global warming dominated most public discussions. Indeed, this holier-than-thou group of scientists and their media acolytes have sought to entrench global warming mantra as an unassailable set of universal truths, a kind holy orthodoxy defended with priestly derision and condemnation when challenged.
In this paper I attempt to re-open the discussion on the science of global warming for public debate. I do so by identifying and reviewing the three sciences of Kyoto politics. It is evident from this discussion that the global warming "consensus" is far from certain, and it is evident that the critics of global warming are far from illegitimate.
Download the full report here (requires adobe acrobat).
|
|
|
|
|
|
