The main reason that Kyoto is a bad joke is because it is only addressing one part of the critically urgent imperative for humanity to come into balance with the planet, while absorbing the majority of the world’s mental energies that are in any way directed towards it. Hence it is creating an enormous diversion from addressing other huge sectors, and sustainability overall.

While everyone is concentrating on carbon emissions, population growth continues unabated and the overall paradigm of never-ending economic growth and human expansion just plods on practically unquestioned.

It is utterly extraordinary that all sorts of different governments and their citizenry around the world have perceived a need to decisively deal with climate change, but have just let these other enormous and at least as urgent factors continue practically unaddressed.

I would have thought that concern about climate change would have morphed into deep concern about global sustainability by now. But Noooo….not a hint of it. Not in a meaningful way at least.

Why can’t we have a global effort to implement a one-child policy… or at least no more than 2? Why is that so unthinkable? It can’t be any harder than implementing meaningful carbon emissions cuts. And it is surely at least as important.

Why can’t we gear our economies towards a steady state instead continuing with the delusion that they’ve got be continuous growing or else we’ll all go into recession and ruin?

THESE are the things that really matter….at least as much as climate change.

Thanks for that link Bazza.
It looks to be an interesting article that once again points out the weakness of all modeling, the base assumptions. I am looking forward to reading it more throughly.
The other problem with population growth Ludwig, is that we are not breeding like rabbits, we have just stopped dieing like flies.

Bazz
Good link. I hope you were able to glean something from the (lengthy) comments section.

Little Brother
Interesting it may be, but that in itself is not worth a cracker - something which many antagonists (I-don't-know-what-to-call-them-anymores) don't seem to understand.

Ergo, "interesting articles" need to stand up to robust critique by the scientific process e.g. just because a paper is published, or a book written, or a report circulated - doesn't mean someone has discovered the holy grail.

As to your statement: "once again points out the weakness of all modeling, the base assumptions ..."
Ummm ... no model is perfect, and er, yes ... some base assumptions have to be made. Whilst I do have some issues with SRES modelling by econometricians, you should realise that GCM hindcasts have been quite robust - do you not agree?

I'm intrigued L'il Bro, are you going to study the full article by de Sousa and Mearns, or the IEA WEO 2008 report, in reading it more thoroughly?

Oh yeah, we are not breeding like rabbits (in the so called 'no baby-bonus' developed world), but they are in the under-developed world where health and education are real issues - they're dying like flies too. What do you suggest?

Ah, here we go again.

Q&A goes straight on the defensive attack, which sets the scene for him to feel persecuted and retreat in about 100 posts time. The words invective, vitriol and persistent ad hominem seem self-descriptive in your case. Still waiting to hear about those "senior's moments" (You know to what I refer, and, no, I haven't forgotten.) If I have missed your apology somewhere, I'm sorry, please direct me to it. All I read was false empathy about your own senior's moments, which is just a sycophantic, cowardly retreat and avoids the fact you didn't substantiate your comment. Something quite diabolical (Roald Dahl-esque) about telling a senior he is having lapses, but not telling him what they were. If this is your idea of reason and rationality, then I can empathise with people's frustration, but I will refrain from backing their insult.

I am taking some delight watching the wheels fall off the AGW wagon. First the unpredicted economic crisis, and coming soon, the unpredicted climatic response. As the sun peters, and people start feeling the cold, they will wonder why we are paying when the thermometer is heading downwards, and was it really that bad before? Perhaps we'll see government ads in which, instead of black balloons, little pink batts will fly out of the TVs, encouraging us to do our bit to insulate the planet. Perhaps companies and individuals will get credit for feeding carbon into the atmosphere. People will be asked to breathe more times a day. Target155 breaths per hour.

I must confess I havn't read the story but if you ask me kyoto is a total waste of time in it's present form. Either we are all in or nobody should be in. How are we going to survive on the ecconomic front if we have to start from so far behind the field and carry such a heavy burden.

As for the leaders, well this comment by a previous poster sums it up for me ...

The fact that climate ministers and their entourage are jetting about rather than video conferencing suggests their approach is ivory tower.

well said!

As I have suggested before,

Kyoto, AGW and the like are merely thinly disguised attempts by the intellectually challenged trolls of the left to impose

Socialism by Stealth