Well, button down the hatches and move away from the coast, we are doomed now Australia did not sign Kyoto, as our insignificant portion is going to tip the scales to disaster for the world.

Why sign something that restricts you, when you are not the main culprit of emmissions? Kyoto has achieved its intended, it has committed countries that were impactual (due to estimated increases in emissions etc), which is a positive step.

We are an insignificant small country that wants to continue to grow, albeit at our own pace, with our own small insignificant population. We are not a third world country, their is a natural level of environmental consciousness in our country, and positive steps taken by our people. therefore it would not be an intelligent decision for the country, only to sedate the bleeding hearts who think we are the center of the universe, the most important country on earth.

Get off the governments back for making a logical, intelligent decision.

When global warming occurs, and we feel the impact, Australia is one of the few countires to benefit, thanks to the great dividing range. We will be the most sought after places on earth, as climate change will help dramatically some parts of this country.

So buy your highland properties on the eastern scarp of Australia, and leave a good legacy for your kids. Get the solar systems up there, generators, be in the position to be self sufficient and be comforted in the knowledge that you have a plan if the worst does happen, and you will be looked after. Now leave Kyoto behind.

Hear hear Realist. I couldn't agree more. And comparing us with Venus is ridiculous. Venus is the way it is because it is smaller than us much closer to the sun than we are, just as Mars is the way it is because it is further away.

Venus takes earth days to rotate once.
This does not allow efficient thermodynamic shifts (cyclones) of heat to its poles. Consequently, greenhouse heat trapping is viable. Additionally, the proto solar system formation naturally bestowed Venus with more heavy elements than Earth. Its interior is a radiocative semi solid soup that generates FAR more heat than the greenhouse effect or venus' proximity to the Sun.

The Earth has cyclonic activity due to the second law of thermodynamics and Earth's hugh rotaion speed. If CO2 levels rise, additional equatorial heating merely spawns more cyclones (climate change) to transfer heat, and excess CO2 to polr regions. At the poles:
* Heat is first trapped in the roaring forties and melts proximal ice caps in what appears to be global melting. However, due to the incredible INHOMOGENEITY of the biosphere, this heat slowly gets used by the melting process and is degraded to longer wavelenghts that can be transmitted to space without any greenhouse reflection. The net effect is localised of=r regional melting at the sub polar regions and excess heat flux to space over the poles. The poles cannot melt because they NEVER get enough sunlight.

So, global warming cannot be sustained. However climate changes can, will and are occuring. I predict a hurricane will wipe out Houston in the US this year around August for example. I won't go into the research I have done to show this here. Suffice it to say that by ceasing to function, New orleans has ceased to pollute coastal waters, and the Mississippi tends to egress towards the Texas Louisiana shelf and Hoiuston. Further, Houston and Appalachicola are bearing the industrial brunt of recovery efforts for the region. THEY are now producing all time record wastewater pollution plumes.

Now these plumes are high entropy and attract low entropy cyclonic formations by the 2LT. The bigger and denser the pollution plume, the bigger the hurricane (cyclonic) strike.

It really amazes me how someone can pack in so small space such amount of misinformation and unscientific claims! No wonder Venus is so hot: its atmospheric pressure is 90 times bigger than Earth’s, so just the sheer weight that atmosphere creates the heat –aided by the proximity of the Sun. Fairy tales are good for children, but serious people (and journalists that think they are serious) should abstain from publishing Fairy Tales trying to scare ignorant people.

Just for giving an idea: CO2 concentration was between 6000 and 2600 parts per million (ppmv) during the Cretaceous, while the mean temperature, according to all proxy studies, was barely 2º C higher than today. But going no further than the 1930 decade, temperatures in the North Pole were as higher as today –and the ice didn’t melt. See now if the North Pole ice is melting because the cold that keeps coming down from Greenland (Mobile Polar Highs) and around the Polar ice cover is unprecedented (as the IPCC guys love to say). Geez!

Mark Twain said once something like “science is a special place where with a trifle investment in speculation one can get such a huge result in predictions”, or something like that.

Continued ...

The problems with greenhouse warming theory:
* does not account for long wavelength heat loss at poles, or biospheric inhomogeneities.
* It is a scenario that predicts loss of our ability to survive, to perform work, which is by definition, thermal equilibrium. As the Earth is continually pumped with solar and geothermal energy, this is not possibble.
* It masks action that needs to be taken wrt wastewater management NOW, to avoid Climate change catastrophes. Instead, agencies dither endlessly over harmless atmospheric gases.

PS Venus has a rotation frequency of 243 earth days .. in the opposite direction to Earth rotation.

Appropiate that Venus is mentioned.

Well the signs of warming on Mars (polar caps disappearing) and Pluto, and ambiguous indications in that direction in the Jupiterian and Saturnian cloud-tops. Wassup with that?

Have got to tell all those nasty people to stop polluting those planets.....wait...hang on?

Okay that nasty sun that controls the Earth's climate, you are okay since any increase in activity is conveniently forgotten.