Challenging the basis of Kyoto Protocol

Kyoto Squeezing the USRussian Scientists Deny Kyoto Protocol Reflects a Consensus View of the World Scientific Community

by Vladimir Radyuhin

As western nations step up pressure on India and China to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, Russian scientists reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming.

Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for cuts in CO2 emissions, say that the theory underlying the pact lacks scientific basis. Under the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is human-generated greenhouse gases, and mainly CO2, that cause climate change. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse,” says renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa. “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.”

Russian researchers made this discovery while studying ice cores recovered from the depth of 3.5 kilometres in Antarctica. Analysis of ancient ice and air bubbles trapped inside revealed the composition of the atmosphere and air temperature going back as far as 400,000 years.

“We found that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly over the period but at any given time increases in air temperature preceded higher concentrations of CO2,” says academician Kapitsa, who worked in Antarctica for many years. Russian studies showed that throughout history, CO2 levels in the air rose 500 to 600 years after the climate warmed up. Therefore, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases registered today are the result, not the cause, of global warming.

Critics of the CO2 role in climate change point out that water vapours are a far more potent factor in creating the greenhouse effect as their concentration in the atmosphere is five to 10 times higher than that of CO2. “Even if all CO2 were removed from the earth atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler,” says solar physicist Vladimir Bashkirtsev.

The hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse gases was born out of computer modelling of climate changes. Russian scientists say climate models are inaccurate since scientific understanding of many natural climate factors is still poor and cannot be properly modelled. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ocean Studies, and many other Russian scientists maintain that global climate depends predominantly on natural factors, such as solar activity, precession (wobbling) of the Earth’s axis, changes in ocean currents, fluctuations in saltiness of ocean surface water, and some other factors, whereas industrial emissions do not play any significant role. Moreover, greater concentrations of CO2 are good for life on Earth, Dr. Sorokhtin argues, as they make for higher crop yields and faster regeneration of forests.

“There were periods in the history of the Earth when CO2 levels were a million times higher than today, and life continued to evolve quite successfully,” agrees Vladimir Arutyunov of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Chemical Physics.

When four years ago, then President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having “no scientific foundation.” He ignored the advice and sent the Kyoto pact to Parliament for purely political reasons: Moscow traded its approval of the Kyoto Protocol for the European Union’s support for Russia’s bid to join the World Trade Organisation. Russian endorsement was critical, as without it the Kyoto Protocol would have fallen through due to a shortage of signatories. It did not cost much for Russia to join the Kyoto Protocol since its emission target was set at the level of 1990, that is, before the Russian economy crashed following the break-up of the Soviet Union. According to some projections, Russia will not exceed its target before 2017. Notwithstanding this, the Russian scientific community is vocal in its opposition to the Kyoto process.

“The Kyoto Protocol is a huge waste of money,” says Dr. Sorokhtin. “The Earth’s atmosphere has built-in regulatory mechanisms that moderate climate changes. When temperatures rise, ocean water evaporation increases, denser clouds stop solar rays and surface temperatures decline.”

Academician Kapitsa denounced the Kyoto Protocol as “the biggest ever scientific fraud.” The pact was lobbied by European politicians and industrialists, critics say, in order to improve the competitiveness of European products and slow down economic growth in emerging economies. “The European Union pushed through the Kyoto Protocol in order to reduce the competitive edge of the U.S. and other countries where ecological standards are less stringent than in Europe,” says ecologist Sergei Golubchikov.

Read the rest of this article at India’s national newspaper, The Hindu.

5 Responses to Challenging the basis of Kyoto Protocol

  1. Rob N. Hood July 19, 2008 at 9:59 pm #

    There is something awfully wrong with the Euro-American way of thinking and doing things. Something about a lack of reverence and respect for life and its remarkable diversity. Something about an amazingly conceited hubris that enables greed technology and technical fabrications and fascinations and resultant artifices, including money, to be worshipped as a God…the sole and true God, justifying every action…and every perversion.

  2. Russ Hageman July 19, 2008 at 10:53 pm #

    Why has mr Gore flown around the world putting on his presentation, (tax deductible working vacation) when he could have used big screen, teleconference technology? “Smaller carbon footprint?” (no geishas though)

  3. Rob N. Hood July 23, 2008 at 9:45 am #

    Give the Gore bashing a rest- it’s gotten real boring and unimaginative.

    Some economists warn that the U. S. economy could not withstand the “shock” of the greening of America because it would result in a sudden surge in unemployment, the loss of federal funds to the hundreds of congressional districts with defense-related industries, and the loss of stock value of the major industry.

    There is no need to worry: Not if all research scientists, engineers, and workers are kept in place as military defense appropriations are slashed by two-thirds or even three-quarters, and all the released appropriations are immediately rerouted to research, development and manufacture of solar, wind, geo-thermal, bio-mass and other alternative energy sources, to the building of a nationwide network of a fast-rail transit system, to the repair and restoration of the dilapidated physical infrastructure (roads, bridges, water and sewage systems, etc.), to no-waste recycling systems, and who knows?, perhaps even to international geo-engineering projects that might reverse global warming (or at least keep that possibility from occurring) and restore the ecological integrity of the oceans.

    Such a “reverse mobilization” is entirely feasible, for we have seen it happen before. In a matter of weeks, in 1942, the industrial base of the American economy was converted to the manufacture of the instruments of war: for example, the production of private automobiles was halted and replaced, almost instantly, with the production of tanks, jeeps, aircraft and artillery. And then, less than four years later, the entire process was reversed. So don’t be afraid of change- fear is what they want to feel so the rich elite can continue the status quo.

  4. D Cage August 3, 2008 at 5:11 am #

    The diversion of effort from military to green will, if it continues as has been the case so far, result in more deaths than both the world wars added together. Primarily this is because the green movement is led by politically astute but technologically incompetent individuals that previously supported the Marxist movement (certainly in the personal cases I know of). They appear unaware that the medieval society model they love would support less than a third of the planet’s current population.

    What is more important is that climate is a statistical artifact and not a scientific one even by the definitions used by the Eco brigade. As such its certainty level is insufficient to justify use for policy making. Presenting climate research as scientific is by its own definition fraud.

    To be scientific it is a basic requirement that every variable causing the climate to increase or decrease in temperature should be accounted for and can be modelled to a declared accuracy. I have even seen a document from the IPCC stating that CO2 is the cause of global warming even though it occurs delayed relative to that measured increase. We are supposed to take this seriously?

    I always did have more respect for Russian science than the west’s but too bad their political system is what ours is aiming towards because that finished their country.

  5. Don Hank November 4, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    D Cage says:

    “I always did have more respect for Russian science than the west’s but too bad their political system is what ours is aiming towards because that finished their country.”

    Did you think that Russia is still communist? I think they are further from it than the West. Keep your eye on Russia, folks. You may soon wish you lived there if trends continue unabated.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.