Share This Page

Son of Kyoto: Same ol' fleecing

The seeds for a new, legally binding United Nations agreement to supposedly fight "climate change" will invariably produce the same rotten fruit as the preposterous pact it replaces.

The so-called "Durban Platform," being hailed as a "hard-fought" agreement, is nothing more than a reconfigured wealth-transferring scheme in the troubling tradition of the Kyoto Protocol, whose commitments expire next year. Various bodies would redistribute billions upon billions of dollars each year from wealthy nations on the pretext of helping poor countries adapt to changing climate conditions.

The supposed "breakthrough" under the new accord is that China, India and other "developing" nations, which were granted exemptions under Kyoto, have agreed to accept some form of legal commitment come 2015 -- so long as it isn't too punishing.

But this latest push to save the planet -- and thoroughly fleece the U.S. -- is premised on climate "conclusions" that are challenged by dissenting scientists and hamstrung by allegations of improprieties. To wit, leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's climate researchers reveal "conspiracy, exaggerated warming data (and) possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data," writes Heritage Foundation analyst Nick Loris.

The illegitimate son of Kyoto is no more acceptable than his pocket-picking parent.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.