I tend to agree with most of the criticisms of Kyoto. However while recent months have been cold in some parts of the world polar regions have been undergoing rapid changes. That in turn may swing the climate pendulum back to the populated areas with flood, drought and wild weather.

The fact that climate ministers and their entourage are jetting about rather than video conferencing suggests their approach is ivory tower. On the other hand the recent 7% annual growth in world coal use may have flattened due to recession, in turn triggered by expensive oil perhaps. Some say China is running short on coal and by 2020 most remaining coal deposits will be expensive to mine, underground gasification not up to scale yet if ever. Specifically global warming could be limited to 1.6C over 1990 with CO2 at 460ppm up from the present 387. That's if the models are right. The slight problem is that millions will freeze in cold snaps as there won't be enough heating.

Therefore carbon abatement programs are low regret in the sense that if global warming was to turn out high we could prevent calamity and if it turned out moderate we have prepared early for the inevitable energy frugality of the future. It's a good each way bet. By not reining in emissions we are speeding toward the edge of a cliff under either scenario.

Kyoto is a bad joke for reasons other than the hypocrisy of the participants jetting their way there; even if you assume the record of CO2 increase over the 20thC is an accurate measurement, it is still beyond doubt that 97% of that increase is from natural sources (see DOE); this dovetails with the fact that CO2 follows temperature increase; temperature increase over the 20thC has been due to PDO phase shift with 2 +ve PDOs at the beginning and end of the century; when temperatures are rising the oceans become net emitters of CO2 (which puts the lie to increasing acidification of the oceans due to CO2 build-up); the connection between SST and PDO activity is well documented with papers by Cayon and White, Tsonis et al, Compo and Sardeshmukh, amongst others, noting that SST determines global temperature without the necessity for GHG contribution. Given this the Kyoto agreements may as well be about fairies as CO2.

Cohenite, why don't you just link to your posts on Jennifer Marahasy's website? Your comments there are arguably more succinct and you are not constrained by word and post limits.

If people don't mind the mindless invective, vitriol and persistent ad hominem emanating from you and your fellow compatriots (Jennifer does seem more tolerant of degrading language than GrahamY), then Marohasy's site is worth a look at. Personally, I don't engage much there anymore - I got sick and tired of being called a dipshit while trying to discuss and explain things in a reasoned and rational way.

Alternatively of course, one has to balance your comments with those elucidated by others. One such view is held by Ian Dunlop. His view (IMO) is quite well articulated over at Professor Barry Brook's website:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/12/07/managing-catastrophic-climate-risk-the-six-step-plan/

My interests are in land/ocean/air coupled systems. However, my head is not stuck in the mud.

Just as Krudd & Co have been seem to do a 180 degree turn on a sixpence over "Inflation" and the need for budget surpluses:

Hopefully, the incumbent, inexperienced, incompetents will do the same on Kyoto and fall in line with the old Liberal "sense and reason", versus their pre-election usual socialist bulldust and blather or going it alone and shipping jobs off shore.

Mind you, no industrial activity will seriously reduce our "emmissions", but not as fast as it will reduce average incomes and quality of life.

The children are now running the toyshop, what more should we expect

There have been some developments recently which may make the whole
Kyoto Jugernaut redundant.

A couple of scientists have run the IPCC model with realistic
fossil fuel burning figures. They changed nothing but the fossil fuel inputs.
The result was a projected 1.6 degree C rise by 2075 and a slow
decrease thereafter.

A result such as this should be cause for pause before very large
amounts are imposed in emission trading indulgences.
I just had a quick look for the reference but cannot find it at the moment.

The second item is a report by two scientists at the NOAA who have
been comparing ocean temperatures with land surface temperatures.
They have found conclusively, they say that land temperatures are set
by ocean temperatures.
They do not rule out that CO2 emission may be causing the ocean
temperature rise but they seem to have their doubts.

Anyway for those who can follow their work here is an indirect
reference to it and I am sure anyone with the necessary scientific
connections will find their paper.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming/

This web site may cause some to dismiss it all but never the less
they are reporting on something that should be looked into.

Found it !
This is the article I mentioned above.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4807#more

The authors state that they just used the IPCC model and changed the
input data for fossil fuel usage.
It is probably only as accurate as the IPCC model anyway but the point is it gives quite different results.
The accuracy of the IPCC model has certainly not been without critics
but a lot of money is going to be spent on its sayso.
It is quite a detail posting and should be read by all with an interest
in this subject.