Sumdumbass, in this thread you're attempting the same tactic you always do. You pose fantasies (conspiracy theories), without providing anything to substantiate your allegations. Then, when anyone indicates the obvious, which is that you're posting fantasies, you tell them to prove a magical unicorn doesn't exist.
No Sumbdumbass, the burden of proof is on you. Prove it does exist.
edit: (( I'm referring to all your posts on this thread, not merely your last post))
I'm sorry, I thought you were versed in the kyoto accords and modern history. Read it, there are even sights out there with commentary that will help you digest them.
While you are at it, answer these questions. You can Google search some of them.
Here is a start from one of my favorite conservative websites
http://www.commondreams.org/views/041000-104.htm
And here is one straight from the horses mouth.
http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/?lid=282
1: What is Jubilee 2000
2: What was their goal
3: why did Al Gore support them
4: how many of the 40 or so countries that were recognized as part of jubilee 2000 were involved with the formation of the Kyoto treaty.
5: why did Jubilee 2000 dissolve all the sudden once the majority of western Europe committed to the Kyoto protocol
6: how many other organizations with similar goals existed at the time with political representation in the majority of countries involved with the creation of Kyoto.
Here are some bonus questions you can easily find and should already know.
1: how many countries are in the schedule 1 parts of the kyoto and have limitations on their emissions
2: how does Kyoto address moving manufacturing into a non capped country.
3: what was china and india's carbon emissions before Kyoto and what are they now.
4: why are they members of the kyoto treaty but do not have emissions caps.
If you know the answers to this, then it is likely you know what I said is true. If you do not know about it, then there is a decade or two in which you were sleeping that has allowed you to become a blind follower or your pet cause. You seem to be so blinded by the following of the church of global warming that you think anything associated with it has to be good or something.
I posed the question earlier about what was more likely to get results- collectively working on a solution and allowing that solution to be implemented at a low cost (because global warming is a real threat and needs addressed) or by imposing the threat of penalties on some countries but not all of them if they do not find ways to independently reduce harmful emissions (because Global warming is a real threat and needs addressed).
We already know the second option is a failure. what brought it about was a post stating Canada's position on it and how they have not been able to reduce emissions and pulled out entirely because they didn't offshore enough of their pollution and faced arbitrary penalties. That alone should be enough for you to at least consider the possibility of Kyoto being broken and a tool for another design. But this brings up another question, who would Canada pay the penalties to and what would they be used for under Kyoto.
If Google isn't a strong point for you, you can always look here.
http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/adaptation_fund/items/3659.php
Yes, the penalties go into the adaptation fund which is a giant slush fund to develop third world countries and make them viable in the changing global environment.
If you take 2 and add it to 2, you get 4.
