Deny Reality while surrounded by it

[woodchip]

So by now you have all heard of the ship full of warmers who are desperately trying to prove the world is really getting warmer. What I find comical, at the height of the summer season, ice holding their ship in its cold grasp the scientist have this to say:

"But Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said it was “silly” to suggest he and 73 others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d sought to prove had melted. He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas."

Curious but I wonder if Chris is aware that:

"In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum and set a new record.
For the second year in a row, we set a record high winter maximum,” said Walt Meier, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center."

And how about the Arctic ice?:

"The ESA announced in a statement on Monday that measurements from Cryosat, the ESA’s polar monitoring platform, showed that Arctic sea ice average thickness grew about 20 percent, or around 30 cm, from 2012 to 2013. Data suggested there was almost 9,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) of ice at the end of the 2013 melt season. Around the same time last year, there was 6,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) of ice, for a net increase of nearly 3,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) compared with 2012."

Now before vision chimes in I want to remind him that when I posted maybe a year ago that the Arctic ice was expanding his caveat was the ice was thin and not to be counted. Well now we have the ice thickening up. For you warmers, how many more years of ice increasing in both extent and thickness before you give up your silly belief in global warming?

[Krom]

Of course the really important ice (meaning the ice over land) continues to shrink, and not just in the antarctic. I wonder if people continue to deny ice is melting even when the ocean comes knocking at their doors...

[Spidey]

I don’t really know what this says about climate change…but it is kinda funny, considering the irony.

[woodchip]

Of course the really important ice (meaning the ice over land) continues to shrink, and not just in the antarctic. I wonder if people continue to deny ice is melting even when the ocean comes knocking at their doors...

Funny how I always heard it was the arctic/antarctic ice that was the important indicator. As to Glaciers it has been shown:

"The Karakoram glaciers are not retreating rather they are advancing or surging, says a recent local study"

What is known the computer models for glaciers don't seem to work all that well.

[callmeslick]

it is ironic, but the fact that those ice floes are floating about in the sea speaks to loss of ice mass over land, sort of proving exactly what they are theorizing.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think whatever might be said about climate change would certainly not do justice to the private-interest-laden politics behind it. I've pretty much decided that whenever someone wants to talk climate change you should grill them on their politics and then dismiss them in lieu of the same.

[callmeslick]

how many more years of ice increasing in both extent and thickness before you give up your silly belief in global warming?

how many more years of rising sea levels do you have to see before you realize you sounded like an idiot back in 2013? Come on down to the Chesapeake bay, or the adjacent seaside, and I'll show you how dramatic it is.

[woodchip]

it is ironic, but the fact that those ice floes are floating about in the sea speaks to loss of ice mass over land, sort of proving exactly what they are theorizing.

How so when ice floes, some of which are the result of glacial calving, are when sea ice breaks up. Or am I wrong?

[woodchip]

how many more years of ice increasing in both extent and thickness before you give up your silly belief in global warming?

how many more years of rising sea levels do you have to see before you realize you sounded like an idiot back in 2013? Come on down to the Chesapeake bay, or the adjacent seaside, and I'll show you how dramatic it is.

Well the question is, is the sea rise due to warming or:

"Floods in Australia in late 2010 strangely resulted in water piling up on that continent, robbing the oceans of enough water to lower global sea level by 7 millimeters for more than a year. While the ocean grows, the land also shifts: The ground rises where it was once pressed down by glaciers, and river deltas sink as loose sediments compact. What looks like sea level rise in one place might really be the result of the land falling. "

So before you sound like a complete idiot now, I suggest you at least google a little info about what you're posting about. slick scores another wrong answer.

[callmeslick]

it is ironic, but the fact that those ice floes are floating about in the sea speaks to loss of ice mass over land, sort of proving exactly what they are theorizing.

How so when ice floes, some of which are the result of glacial calving, are when sea ice breaks up. Or am I wrong?

as was pointed out(or was attempted) earlier, ice in the water doesn't equate to more ice OVER LAND. And, we're talking about Antartica, which has a substantial land mass. It is the ice over land that matters. Like I say, very ironic, but as I also said, feel free to pack a bag(preferably during fishing season), and I'll gladly show you where the Bay and Atlantic have risen over the past decade, and over my lifetime. Hell, I can think of two islands that have nearly disappeared since my boyhood on the seaside, and the island my family duck hunted on is around 2/3 the size it was in my childhood. The fact that the average water temps have steadily inched up and there is utterly no land 'falling' like that goofy Australian example(would LOVE to see the source for that assertion, by the way).

[Tunnelcat]

Keeps with the blinders all you righty naysayers. Adding energy will create more extremes, which we ARE seeing. Only time will tell if we're eventually going to be cooked and drowned at the same time. I'll be dead by the time that happens, so I don't care, unless God reincarnates me to this mess of a planet. God I hope not.

[Grendel]

As to Glaciers it has been shown:

"The Karakoram glaciers are not retreating rather they are advancing or surging, says a recent local study"

What is known the computer models for glaciers don't seem to work all that well.

No, they don't, hence they are being worked on. From the Conclusions of Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures:

The early mass balance measurements indicate strong ice losses as early as the 1940s and 1950s, followed by a moderate ice loss between 1966 and 1985, and accelerating ice losses until present. The global average annual mass loss of more than half a metre water equivalent during the decade of 1996 to 2005 represents twice the ice loss of the previous decade (1986–95) and over four times the rate of the decade from 1976 to 1985. Prominent periods of regional mass gains are found in the Alps in the late 1970s and early 1980s and in coastal Scandinavia and New Zealand in the 1990s.

Despite the holes in measurements the trend is clearly readable. Using a local stagnation/gain as argument for denying it is a bit naïve.

[woodchip]

The fact that the average water temps have steadily inched up and there is utterly no land 'falling' like that goofy Australian example(would LOVE to see the source for that assertion, by the way).

So Yale gives goofy examples?
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_wat ... rise/2702/

[Tunnelcat]

[youtube]9w7oFCVnJ9w[/youtube]

[callmeslick]

The fact that the average water temps have steadily inched up and there is utterly no land 'falling' like that goofy Australian example(would LOVE to see the source for that assertion, by the way).

So Yale gives goofy examples?
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_wat ... rise/2702/

interesting article. I note that it introduces that theory(and that was all it was) to show how prediction is difficult, but goes to some lengths to assert that warming is clearly happening.....sort of counter to your assertion at the outset.

[Grendel]

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_wat ... rise/2702/

Good read -- "No matter which way you look at it, the result is cause for concern." [..] "We probably can adapt to a certain extent. The problem is that we’re not planning for it."

[woodchip]

I think this may sum up things:

"The primary reason this accounting is tricky is spotty data: Satellite measures of ocean height only go back to 1993, for example, and of the world’s more than 100,000 glaciers, there are only 17 with melt records going back 30 years or more. "We have to make huge assumptions," says Chambers. "

So lets base the worlds economy on badly understood assumptions.

[callmeslick]

that shouldn't preclude a LOT of study, and prudent planning. What makes me nuts(this affects my properties on the Eastern Shore) is seeing how much politics prevents Virginia from keeping up with Maryland and Delaware in doing this, despite the fact that the Virginia islands are already going under and Norfolk would go under before any major city in the other two states. At current rates of rise, this could be as soon as 2050.....and, they dither.

[woodchip]

For those of you who think the ocean rise in water levels is only a current condition due to man made warming I suggest to take a look at the charts in here:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Fi ... _Level_png

[vision]

For those of you who think the ocean rise in water levels is only a current condition due to man made warming I suggest to take a look at the charts in here:

Oh good god I can't believe we have to go though this again.

Look, the Earth has been warming for thousands of years. It's also been hotter than this in the past. We know this. All these factors are controlled for in current observations. But even after controlling for all the natural warming there is still additional warming that is unaccounted for. This is the warming caused by humans and exactly follows known records of pollutants we make. Again, the danger is not that the Earth is getting warmer, which it is, and much of that we can't stop no matter what. The danger is that the additional warming is happening very, very fast and will likely have disastrous effects on global ecosystems, perhaps causing a major extinction event. Reducing man-made warming might allow us to avoid what looks more and more like certain catastrophe.

Any more questions?

Regarding the politics behind warming and economy: it really doesn't matter. What matters is that we actually do something. The stakes are too great. It's either we have an economic collapse and rebuild or we have an environmental collapse and billions die. It should be obvious what the right choice is. And for those why want to wait and see, well I suspect you won't believe anything at this point, so please stand aside.

[Ferno]

Here's the thing about global warming (or climate change, if you want to call it that).

My home town, a place that has never had any kind of flood-related issues, had half the downtown core flooded out in the summer. That to me, is some pretty compelling evidence.

[woodchip]

Here's the thing about global warming (or climate change, if you want to call it that).

My home town, a place that has never had any kind of flood-related issues, had half the downtown core flooded out in the summer. That to me, is some pretty compelling evidence.

Thats because you sucked all the ground water out and your town is sinking

[woodchip]

News Flash! Researchers will now be rescued from ship by helicopter. Extreme heat from global warming is causing ship to melt.

[Will Robinson]

We are doing something about it and it is most likely working:

Good news for fans of planet Earth: The seasonal hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica was at its second-smallest point in the past 20 years, according to new research from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Could this be the first real sign that the ozone layer is recovering after decades of destruction?

The ozone layer, which includes oxygen and nitrogen as well as ozone, forms a protective belt in the stratosphere about 10 to 18 miles above the Earth, reflecting the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. In the 1960s and ’70s, the widespread release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals used primarily in spray aerosols, led to a partial breakdown of the layer.

Since the 1980s, the ozone layer above Antarctica has been especially affected because the region’s frigid temperatures speed up the conversion of CFCs to chlorine, which also accelerates ozone breakdown. Sunshine in the southern spring and summer creates even more ozone-depleting gases, leading to the massive destruction of up to 65 percent of the ozone layer.

While the reduced depletion was due mostly to higher temperatures on the icy continent, scientists are hopeful that the chemical levels have dropped enough that the result is a shrinkage of the ozone hole each season. “If these trends continue for the next few years,” says atmospheric scientist Bryan Johnson of NOAA in Boulder, Colo., “we’ll have confidence things are improving.”

What we don't need to do is give the U.N., Al Gore, or any global body any more control of our future under the guise they will stop warming. What they have offered is exclusions for some of the worlds leading polluters and redistribution of wealth from leading economic powers into the hands of the 3rd world....all in the name of climate change catastrophe prevention.

The politics of climate change is full of hot air for sure.
If scientists want their concerns accepted they need to stop putting out for the 'globalist pimps' and shout down those that are wrapping themselves in the flag of science while profiting from non-solutions.

[vision]

News Flash!

Go back to school.

[

What we don't need to do is give the U.N., Al Gore, or any global body any more control of our future under the guise they will stop warming.

Maybe not Al Gore specifically, but this is one case where we need some solid globalism. The UN is the best thing we have and should make use of it. We have a global problem, we need a global solution. The bad thing is climate change will affect the poorest nations first and they have the least influence.

[Will Robinson]

News Flash!

Go back to school.

[

What we don't need to do is give the U.N., Al Gore, or any global body any more control of our future under the guise they will stop warming.

Maybe not Al Gore specifically, but this is one case where we need some solid globalism. The UN is the best thing we have and should make use of it. We have a global problem, we need a global solution. The bad thing is climate change will affect the poorest nations first and they have the least influence.

Solutions are fine. It isn't solutions at the UN I'm talking about though.
It is demagoguery and extortion. The Kyoto Protocol implimentation...carbon credits....surrendering autonomy to a clearing house for extortionists. India and China exempt...and the U.S. pays double?!? Meh! There is little science in that scheme other than the science of politics and opportunism!

[vision]

...carbon credits....surrendering autonomy to a clearing house for extortionists. India and China exempt...and the U.S. pays double?!? Meh! There is little science in that scheme other than the science of politics and opportunism!

Not necessarily. The sad thing is the Kyoto Protocol doesn't go nearly far enough. It just pays lip service to the problems of climate change. No I'm sorry, but real solutions will be much more costly to the United States and other developing countries. Kyoto aims to reduce emissions. We actually need to stop emissions AND remove the carbon we created. It is quite embarrassing how the United States thumbs it nose at climate policies. Then again we have millions of people like woodchip here, so it's not really a surprise. Think the cost of climate policy is too high? Wait until you see the bill Mother Nature hands us in 50 years (of course we will all be dead so whatever, right?).

[Will Robinson]

...carbon credits....surrendering autonomy to a clearing house for extortionists. India and China exempt...and the U.S. pays double?!? Meh! There is little science in that scheme other than the science of politics and opportunism!

Not necessarily. The sad thing is the Kyoto Protocol doesn't go nearly far enough. It just pays lip service to the problems of climate change. No I'm sorry, but real solutions will be much more costly to the United States and other developing countries. Kyoto aims to reduce emissions. We actually need to stop emissions AND remove the carbon we created. It is quite embarrassing how the United States thumbs it nose at climate policies. Then again we have millions of people like woodchip here, so it's not really a surprise. Think the cost of climate policy is too high? Wait until you see the bill Mother Nature hands us in 50 years (of course we will all be dead so whatever, right?).

How does a policy that merely shifts the source of pollution, and thus productivity, from one geographic location/country to another meet the standard of being a "solution"?

All it does is slow one country down while allowing the other to assume a greater role in the production of pollutants. And those exempt countries are ones with much lower standards for environmental protection.

Your previous comments about it being a global problem are correct. Your assumption that a 'global body' like the UN will be inherently global in crafting a solution is wrong.
If it is a global solution then the standards must be globally enforced.
If not it isn't 'global' and the result is you have politics over ruling science for purposes outside the criteria for solution.

[vision]

How does a policy that merely shifts the source of pollution, and thus productivity, from one geographic location/country to another meet the standard of being a "solution"?

It's a start. The trading is meant to provide economic disincentives. And this was never meant to be a final solution to the problem, it is just one step albeit an imperfect one. Currently the Untied States is taking zero steps. We are such great role models! Also, you got a better solution? And what is more appropriate than the United Nations to handle global problems? Maybe "Team America World Police?" You know, we have a problem with health care but everyone is so g0ddamn afraid of the boogeyman of "socialism" (even though it works great in other countries) that now we have the ACA which is the opposite of socialism and everyone hates it. Should we attack a global problems like climate change the same way? Everyone is so worried about their g0ddamn "freedom" when it's that same freedom to screw everyone else over that got us in this mess. Maybe we should take some personal responsibility for the fracking planet? Not doing something about climate change is the equivalent of abortion, except the planet is the fetus.

[Spidey]

I walk to work.

[Krom]

You all make it sound like America has done nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions here, which is pretty far from the truth. While I think most of the economic policies brought up are stupid and a complete waste of time, or downright malicious, outside of that political mess there has been real improvements made for the very simple reason of it saves money on your power/water/fuel bills.

[Will Robinson]

We do lots of things to reduce our pollution and I'm all for global solutions implemented by anyone, even the UN if they come up with one, but that doesn't mean I'm on board for the kind of extortion and redistribution they practice.

Offsets are just redistribution of opportunity and/or productivity.

I'm real sorry China and India, etc. have economic issues but I'm not willing to let the UN demagogue climate change to create a subsidy for them at our expense!
That kind of thing has nothing to do with solving climate change.

[vision]

I'm real sorry China and India, etc. have economic issues but I'm not willing to let the UN demagogue climate change to create a subsidy for them at our expense!
That kind of thing has nothing to do with solving climate change.

Selfish much? It's not our expense, it is the expense of the entire planet. Your kind loves to preach personal responsibility and sacrifice unless it inconveniences you. Kyoto was an imperfect first step and US, but an important step nonetheless. By not signing we pretty much told the world we were not really interested in the world's problems, only our economy. Such great role models! We are the best country in the world! Go 'Murica!

I walk to work.

Well done. I do to. In fact, I only put gas in my car 3 times last year, that's how little I drive it.

[woodchip]

I'm real sorry China and India, etc. have economic issues but I'm not willing to let the UN demagogue climate change to create a subsidy for them at our expense!
That kind of thing has nothing to do with solving climate change.

Selfish much? It's not our expense, it is the expense of the entire planet. Your kind loves to preach personal responsibility and sacrifice unless it inconveniences you. Kyoto was an imperfect first step and US, but an important step nonetheless. By not signing we pretty much told the world we were not really interested in the world's problems, only our economy. Such great role models! We are the best country in the world! Go 'Murica!

Selfish? Why should we have to bear ever more costs when the American taxpayer pays up the nose for all those EPA regs. that make our country clean. Let China, India and all those heavy polluters pay through their collective noses to clean up their mess. This is kinda like a guy lets his dog crap in your yard and then expects you to clean it up.

[vision]

Why should we have to bear ever more costs when the American taxpayer pays up the nose for all those EPA regs. that make our country clean. Let China, India and all those heavy polluters pay through their collective noses to clean up their mess. This is kinda like a guy lets his dog crap in your yard and then expects you to clean it up.

Why don't you contemplate the answer while sitting in you super fuel inefficient vehicle, one of millions of vehicles in America. Think about American materialism and where all the factories are that make the things our insatiable citizens want to buy. We are paying for all these luxuries in carbon and other pollutants. These everyday luxuries are things very few people in China and India have. They pollute to support our habits.

[Will Robinson]

Vision, you are complaining based on a false premise. The portions of the Kyoto protocol that were a non-solution is nothing to defend. At least not in the name of 'climate change' correction.

If you want to advocate for creating economic equality on a global scale then go ahead. But don't hide your desire to subsidize the lesser developed or culturally handicapped countries behind the danger of climate change!
It isn't selfish for us to reject such a tactic.

America has undertaken plenty of real solutions to reduce pollution, solutions that have reduced our productivity and increased our cost of living and inconvenienced us. I don't suggest those measures are wrong and I accept the responsibility for, and cost of, those real solutions. I reject the non solutions.

[vision]

If you want to advocate for creating economic equality on a global scale then go ahead. But don't hide your desire to subsidize the lesser developed or culturally handicapped countries behind the danger of climate change!

Please show me where I said I want to create economic equality on a global scale. Show me where I said I want to subsidize "lesser developed or culturally handicapped countries." Apparently you are having a conversation with yourself. My guess is you have been conditioned to react to "talking points" and when the conversation goes into unfamiliar territory you just spit out nonsense like an ill-programed robot.

[Will Robinson]

If you want to advocate for creating economic equality on a global scale then go ahead. But don't hide your desire to subsidize the lesser developed or culturally handicapped countries behind the danger of climate change!

Please show me where I said I want to create economic equality on a global scale. Show me where I said I want to subsidize "lesser developed or culturally handicapped countries." Apparently you are having a conversation with yourself. My guess is you have been conditioned to react to "talking points" and when the conversation goes into unfamiliar territory you just spit out nonsense like an ill-programed robot.

Uh .."false premise"..did you fail to read and comprehend that part?!?

You called Kyoto a first step in defense of my pointing out it, and the other UN 'climate fixes' are loaded with economic transfer and not loaded with actual climate change solution...

You calling me selfish for not going along with the transfer of productivity in the name of supposed climate change correction that isn't a correction but is an attempt to implement economic equality...
That sounds like you are in favor of the transfer to me.

I think you are the one who isn't reading and comprehending correctly because you are clearly avoiding the distinction I have made!
We certainly have cleaned up our act but we refused to sign an agreement that was quite disagreeable. None of the signers of that agreement met the standards it set, to do so would have been devastating to their economy, of course those with the exemptions to the agreement had no trouble being exempt from them....

With the full benefit of hindsight, why would we want to have signed it? Transfer of productivity/wealth is the only part of it that was going to succeed!

[snoopy]

I have a few thoughts to hit on:

1. I deal with the scientific process in the form of troubleshooting on a fairly regular basis. I see people latch onto a theory and try to cram the data into their pre-made box all of the time. I'd like to think that I do a good job of avoiding it, but I do it, too. It's human nature to have a hard time giving up on a bad theory, especially when we've invested a large portion of our life in it.

2. I've never particularly bought into the whole global warming theory and the projections that people derive from it. If you want an entertaining read that will at least make you think about alternatives on the subject, give Crichton's "State of Fear" a read. It isn't a scientific work, but he did some research on the topic, and it least it makes you think... My biggest issue is with hanging the global economy upon these theories.

3. I am convinced, however, that we will inevitably have a effect upon the balance of nature any time that we're present. I think it's simply unavoidable, and if the goal is that nothing change, we're guaranteed to fail. I also think that the more advanced and numerous we get, the more impact we will have. I don't think there will ever be a "free lunch" technology that magically allows us to produce food & energy without impact upon the environment... some are better than others, and there's potential for more improvements, but I'm not keen on jumping on the fad trains, because it seems like we always learn about the impacts after they have been adopted as the best thing since sliced bread.

4. I'm also convinced that change (and actually I'd say degradation) is inevitable, regardless of man's impact. I think that the species are going to go extinct, forests are going to be destroyed, etc. whether we're here helping the process along or not.

5. I think that my general philosophy on conservatism is "less is more." I think that "sustainable" practices fit this mold - my approach to the whole is to try to minimize my impact in general. This means that I'm going to try to recycle, I'm not going to litter, I'm going to turn my lights, etc.... but it also means that I'm not really into all those "plant a tree" type of initiatives. I think there are always unintended consequences... So, I'm in favor of government/economic initiatives to learn more and to minimize our impact, but not ones that say "lets do _____ so we minimize our impact."

[vision]

None of the signers of that agreement met the standards it set, to do so would have been devastating to their economy, of course those with the exemptions to the agreement had no trouble being exempt from them....

Incorrect. Plenty of countries met their targets, including countries with binding targets. In fact, The United Kingdom did fantastically. Strangely, the thing that did the most damage to their economy in this time period was the global recession caused by the United States...

You called Kyoto a first step in defense of my pointing out it, and the other UN 'climate fixes' are loaded with economic transfer and not loaded with actual climate change solution...

As was mentioned before, the solution is complex and costly. Kyoto intended to reduce emissions, which is itself just a small part of the solution. I'm sure you read some conservative nonsense somewhere that used language to make you think Kyoto wanted to enforce "redistribution of wealth" to poorer countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Money moving from one country to another follows a market, and that market is based solely on projects that aim to combat climate change. From the UNFCCC:

• "To compensate for the sting of "binding targets," as they are called, the agreement offers flexibility in how countries may meet their targets. For example, they may partially compensate for their emissions by increasing "sinks" -- forests, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That may be accomplished either on their own territories or in other countries. Or they may pay for foreign projects that result in greenhouse-gas cuts. Several mechanisms have been set up for this purpose."

Would you rather send billions of dollars to countries who hate us or spend some of that money fighting deforestation or developing alternative energy in a country that thinks we are cool? The answer should be clear. That's the kind of "economic transfer" I can get behind.

You calling me selfish for not going along with the transfer of productivity in the name of supposed climate change correction that isn't a correction but is an attempt to implement economic equality...

You say economic equality like it is a bad thing. What is the matter with you? From the UNFCC:

• "The Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities.'"

In other words, carbon goals were assigned proportional to how well a country could handle the target. This is similar to our tax structure. People who make the least money pay the least taxes. Do you see economic equality in the United States because of our tax code? Certainly not. In fact, it's probably because the richest in the US pay the least in penalties that cause the United States to look at Kyoto and say "uh, that's not how we usually do things, sorry. we are special you know?" and abandon the treaty. Spoiled brats.

With the full benefit of hindsight, why would we want to have signed it?

• "There is a delicate balance to international treaties. Those appealing enough to gain widespread support often aren't strong enough to solve the problems they focus on... Yet treaties with real "teeth" may have difficulty attracting enough widespread support to be effective." UNFCCC

In hindsight we look like assholes. This was our opportunity to be involved with a truly global project aimed to tackle a truly global problem. It was our chance to live up to the BS we spit out about being the greatest country in the world. At the time it was written (1997) The United States was the largest polluter on the planet and we pretty much told the entire rest of the world to get bent. We are the nation most capable of making these types of changes and we couldn't be bothered to even meet the diminutive, flaccid target set before us. Pathetic.

No, Kyoto didn't achieve its goals. This has less to do with how the treaty was designed and more to do with lack of commitment to it.

And finally, since you don't know anything about Kyoto other than what has been feed to you by conservative AM radio, I suggest you step out of the box because you are out of your class.