A good decision weighs the benefits against the costs.

Wisdom REQUIRES answers to the following questions before taking immediate action [answers including a reasonable range of uncertainty are entirely acceptable]:

What action do you propose?
What will it accomplish?
What will it cost?
How much more will it cost to accomplish the same thing if we wait?

Advocates of immediate action on global warming have utterly failed to answer any of these.

Because they have not been answered, I suspect that people who want immediate action on global warming do not believe that the case for immediate action can be supported by facts.

That is to say, if the general public were given clear answers to these four questions, advocates of immediate action believe that they would decide to do nothing.

If Kyoto is not the action that you are proposing, then either say what that action is, or concede that given present technology, there is no available action that justifies the cost.

A tremendous amount of potential effort has been wasted due to distractions. The questions have been answered. Stern springs to mind.

I have a problem with Kyoto.  The problem I have is that it is merely a political mechanism for bringing us global socialism.  I seriously doubt it will have much effect (if any) on CO2 emmissions.  If the global warming alarmists were really serious about this great hoax, why don't they instead of spending millions on climate research spend that money on finding alternative energy supplies so that we are less relient on fossil fuels.  I guess that would make too much sense.

We can agree to disagree on the causes on global warming but I think we can all agree that finding alternatives to fossil fuels is fundamentally a good thing for everyone.  This would be a good idea both from an economic perspective and also because of the reality that oil is a finite resource.

Global warming activists, green politicians and the left wing media are motivated more by a socialist and anti-capitalist agenda than genuine concern for the environment and they also have ideas that wouldn't work even "if" CO2 was the real cause of global warming.

Ok, I have a few things to say about global warming, no wait, climate change, no cooling, no warming, um...the earth...

 Interesting how 1 year global whatever is going to cause more hurricanes and mankind is going to be wiped off the face of the earth because of it, then when there are fewer hurricanes immediatly global thingy is going to cause fewer hurricanes.  Whats up with that?

 My guess is that you answered question 1 with "We aren't entirely sure what global climate change is going to do."  Ok based on that how do we know WHAT!!! to do?  I agree, we should reduce, reuse, recycle but beyond that do we know what cause and effect is for our actions.  Remember, if we mess something up horribly Mother Nature won't give us a participation award, kiss on the cheek and a "You'll get it next time" speech.

Also, in another article I saw that it is believed that rapid climate change caused mass extinctions before (appeared to be around the time of dinosaur extinctions)...I thought the scientific consensus was that an asteroid or meteor hit the earth thus plunging the entire world into nuclear winter.  That is just what was always force fed to me by scientists, I dunno, I guess you could say that the nuclear winter was dramatic climate change...

Interesting how 1 year global whatever is going to cause more hurricanes and mankind is going to be wiped off the face of the earth because of it, then when there are fewer hurricanes immediatly global thingy is going to cause fewer hurricanes.  Whats up with that?

Abrupt climate change affects overall climate, not day-to-day (or even year-to-year) weather reports.  When the climatologists talk about how hurricanes will generally become more extreme, they don't mean that any specific year will contain more extreme hurricanes.

My guess is that you answered question 1 with "We aren't entirely sure what global climate change is going to do."  Ok based on that how do we know WHAT!!! to do?  I agree, we should reduce, reuse, recycle but beyond that do we know what cause and effect is for our actions.  Remember, if we mess something up horribly Mother Nature won't give us a participation award, kiss on the cheek and a "You'll get it next time" speech.

The suggestion implied in Kyoto is that we now know what NOT to do -- in short, DON'T burn 85 million barrels of oil every day, and DON'T burn a lot of coal, because of the (as of yet untold) HARM it could do to global ecosystems.

Also, in another article I saw that it is believed that rapid climate change caused mass extinctions before (appeared to be around the time of dinosaur extinctions)...I thought the scientific consensus was that an asteroid or meteor hit the earth thus plunging the entire world into nuclear winter.  That is just what was always force fed to me by scientists, I dunno, I guess you could say that the nuclear winter was dramatic climate change...

No scientist is force-feeding you anything.  The "rapid climate change" extinctions are the ones that occurred in the Permian-Triassic boundary, 251.4 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Ok let me reclarify my statements since I guess my intent wasnt clear I guess.

Hurricanes:
  For 2004-2007 scientists were clamoring that the hurricane season was going to be more intense and have more hurricanes...2006 - 2007 neither is true AND now scientists are claiming that global warming is going to intensify the el nino effect and generate more wind shear in the atlantic which equals (according to these same scientists as earlier) fewer hurricanes of less intensity.  My point:  we have no clue what global warming will do other than raise tempuatures .7 degrees C per 100 years.

[The suggestion implied in Kyoto is that we now know what NOT to do -- in short, DON'T burn 85 million barrels of oil every day, and DON'T burn a lot of coal, because of the (as of yet untold) HARM it could do to global ecosystems.]

This is my point exactly - we dont know what to do, and as I said reduce reuse recycle - also, kind of amazing how Kyoto forces America to not only reduce emissions but also allows other countries to do nothing at all.  Shouldnt we force all countries to reduce?  Russia gets to stay below their 1991 levels (Soviet Union) which are way ABOVE!!! todays levels.  Also they get to sell their carbon "credits" to other nations...it all sounds like a scam.  How about a Joe Protocol...everyone reduce the rate at which we increase co2 emissions per year by 50%, everyone, everywhere, not that some countries have to reduce while others can increase while others dont have to do anything.

[No, finding alternatives to fossil fuels is a good thing for those who have found them.  That 40% of humanity that lives off of less than $2/day?  You'd actually have to share the benefits of alternative energy with them, and that would be socialism.]

How many of these 2.4 billion people use fuel at all?  So in reality sharing green fuel technologies would be with people who could afford it.

1 final thing...if dramatic climate change happened before humans then what caused that?  The sun? A massive sudden release of co2 or methane?  And is there a link somewhere that shows how much co2 humans produce as a percentage of the total amount of co2 in the air along with total co2 production on earth.  I have never seen this number, I want to but it being "hidden" raises some questions about it, either we dont know it or we dont contribute that much.

"The purpose of Kyoto is to establish international political and economic mechanisms for dealing with global warming, by taking the first tentative steps toward a difficult goal."

...that being to prime the green machine for its eventual replacement of the military machine.  Gotta get that big funding cranked up if you're gonna take over the world's government bodies.  This site is presumably on board as a propaganda arm.

This site, by the way, is spectacular!  You guys have really left nothing to chance here. This, along with the media barrage, should persuade the cattle nicely.  Kudos.

There should be another post under "too late" for those that aren't concerned about Kyoto. It'd be nice to hear a response to the worry that the CO2 outputs over the last century have been so significant, and the likelihood of an environmental feedback loop so high, that even an immediate reduction to 0 carbon emissions would accomplish very little.

If this were the case, then one might argue we should exploit all the cheap energy we can as long as possible, turning that energy into worthwhile projects like levees for low lying coastal cities and on drought resistant crop research.

It'd be interesting to hear any response.

"I have a rather personal peeve with people who vociferously criticize any attempt at a solution and yet propose nothing in its place."

Bad plans are bad plans, and if Kyoto is one, it should be outed as such. Your better argument is that Kyoto isn't so bad, despite my residual worries (that Kyoto just encourages relocation of carbon producing industries to emerging economies, leading to net increases in carbon output with no economic gain).

If this solution would actually be harmful, I think it's important for people to speak up, even if they haven't come up with the magic bullet on their own. You should take an implied alternative course of action as "let's wait to see what else we can come up with."

Wasted effort, when it wastes any resources which could fight other problems, is more harmful in the long run than no effort at all.

The last part of the "rebuttal" is what is so great. Like a two year old who can not get their way and stamping their feet while whirling around.... "shut up" I am sure they even made the pouty face. Nice discussion, I guess the verdict is in even though you show absolutly no evidence to rebut the "deniers" claims. They seem to have graphs and information but this author has "shut up" and nothing else. Wow you sure convinced me that you are right, your data and credintials are impeccable. I for one, and just for you, am going to do all I can to make the biggest carbon footprint I can. I am going to trade my focus in for a Hummer tomorrow and take as many long trips as I can. So to retort to your "shut up" I stick out my tongue at you.

I don't feel like going through all the major problems with Kyoto here, but abandoning cap/trade or carbon pricing generally because Kyoto has a bad record is like placing a moratorium on auto transport because Hummer's pollute so much.  

over 90% free allocation to polluting industries, including reserves specifically for certain fuels, which, surprise surprise incentivize construction of more of those sources because someone's gotta collect on the pot (for those of you wondering why new coal goes up with a $40 "price" on carbon).  I say "price" because no one is actually paying $40 per ton they emit, which means overconsumption/production of emissions intensive goods continues, which creates a scarcity of remaining credits and drives up the price for all credits, even for their puny reductions.  All of which are overshadowed by the the CDM problems.  

Nothing against Europe, they're taking some licks while we sit back and watch how it goes - we're gonna have an easier time of this than they did and we owe them (though we do subsidize their low Rx prices with our high ones, so maybe we call it even).  But there is no need to defend the admittedly broken Kyoto (Phases I&II) to defend action on GHG's in the future.