> Under the U.S. Constitution, adopted treaties are the law. Per the UNFCCC
> (an adopted treaty), the U.S. is thus committed to "avoiding dangerous
> clinate change." Griffin seems oblivious to this.
Interestingly, I've seen it argued that Bush didn't want to sign Kyoto
precisely because he knew that the US would have to stick to it, and
couldn't get away with signing it without any intention of
implementing it (like say Canada). I don't know how much truth there
is to this supposition.
I'd guess that Griffin wants dangerous climate change avoided, but
presumably his personal idea of where the threshold between dangerous
and not dangerous lies differs from Hansen's (I don't entirely
understand the organisational structure of NASA, is Griffin actually
Hansen's line manager?).
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
