Hasbeen,

I take it this is the 7.30 Report piece to which you refer?

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3646515.htm

Can you point me in the direction of "...some damn fool academic....[going] on to talk about a 10 meter sea level rise this century..."?

That bit doesn't appear to be included in the transcript.....or maybe you're embellishing your story a tad?

The essential part of Kyoto 1 are as follows
(1) Reduce the carbon emissions of each country to 1990's level
(2) 196 countries thought it was a great idea and "signed" up to it.
(3) This "signing" is simply stating that it's a good idea - that's it!
(4) If they chose to "commit" to this target - they will "ratify" it
(5) Most countries chose to "ratify" because they are not compelled to meet the target
(6) Only 35 countries are legal bound to their ratified targets - Aust, Canada (not China or India and US never ratified
(7) The penalty is paid through the purchasing of carbon credits - this is why Australia needed the carbon tax.
(8) You can thank Labor for this penalty because they ratified Kyoto to impose the penalty and they bought in the carbon tax
(9) Canada walked away from their ratification because it became too expensive

Kyoto 2
(1) Same concept of pre-1990 levels
(2) The issue here is how do we make the other 165 countries be accountable
(3) How does the UN enforce the target
(4) How do the UN collect money from the penalties

Here's what to consider
(1) The environment cannot tell the difference between emission per capita and total emissions.
(2) While Aust is high on a per capita level we only have 23M people and produce 1.3% to total emissions.
(3) This argument is stupid in trying to guilt trip Australia into cutting emissions - 4% cut of 1.3% emission by 2020 is NOTHING
(4) China, India, US are the key to these emissions - how do we get them to comply
(5) The 4% cut by 2020 we are trying to achieve is something China emits in less than a fortnight

Poirot I did say it was the news, or the 730 report, & I wasn't sure which. It must have been the news. I didn't hear much, only for as long as it took me to get up from the computer, & find the remote.

I really could not believe the academic, or the fool lady [sorry Poirot, but they just about are all ladies on their ABC today], who must not have done any research on her segment.

It was the opening item, & I just couldn't believe anyone could be seriously broadcasting this garbage today. Even some of you confirmed believers should be starting to see how irrational the warmist promoters are getting.

It must be tough. Being laughed at by the public, as they exaggerate even more on one side, & having Julia on their tail, demanding they justify her fool carbon tax.

Come on Poirot, you must be able to smell some of the desperation in the air. It is not there because they have evidence to support their story.

Hasbeen,

"It must be tough, being laughed at by the public..."

Not at all, if you're representative of "the public"...that is "the public who assumes they understand the science by sniggering with other denialists on blog sites run by people who aren't climate scientists".

Fascinating places, "skeptic" sites. I had a peek over at Jo Nova's recently. Apparently they were upset about some comment made on the ABC....it was reminiscent of the aftermath of someone stepping on an ant's nest.

Poirot

those are exactly the comments that could be made about the believers..

Ouch! The old pot-kettle argument. Get's 'em every time. How do you do it?