Socialism by stealth huh? How, um, Republican. I keep hearing this but no-one's explained how energy efficiency and socialism are connected.

Climate change continues as it has done for thousands of years. THe conspiracy theorist and the deceitful high priests are still cashing in while the gullible are too proud to admit they were sucked in and were wrong. I find the whole thing hilarous. Its a pity so many young children have been brainwashed with this crap. We will really know what global warming is when Israels enemies finally do what the sure word of the Lord declares.

What's this runner? An allusion to the end times?

Climate change continues but not as it did for thousands of years. The entire point being made by the IPCC and others is that the climate is changing much faster this time round, and the only known cause is...oh what's the use? I'm debating a creationist.

Yes Kyoto is unworkable for all the reasons stated and more. Only when the entire planet is in deep depression and China's factories close will we make a difference.

I never expected Kyoto to reduce emissions or even stabilise them, but I did expect it to put the world on notice that policies with teeth are going to come along further down the line.

Mark Lawson may well be correct that nothing much will happen, that setting targets for emissions and meeting them are two different things, that the shorter term economic consequences of strong action will preclude such action. But of course there will be serious climatic consequences further down the line and those will have economic consequences. Serious consequences that make a credit crisis look fairly benign. I want a serious, world changing issue taken with the seriousness it deserves. I for one am not happy that an economic downturn has a short term consequence of reducing the growth rate of emissions, as it's not an underlying shift from dirty energy to clean energy and doesn't represent a serious start of such a shift. So, no cheering about the financial crisis from this "activist".

Mark hasn't really expressed strong concern for the expecteds, very serious consequences of climate change or presented any kind of suggestions of how to reduce the consequences and costs of the consequences of climate change by other means. Is the point of the article that it's too hard, it's not in our short-term self-interest and we shouldn't even bother trying? Sorry Mark but I think, in light of the best science based knowledge of climate and climate change, such an attitude is dangerous and irresponsible and going to cost more than we could ever gain by avoiding action.