Yes as it has done so for the last 4.5 billion years.

“The majority of the world’s scientists think that we are dangerously changing the climate”

Er, no.
In fact, global mean temps have not changed for 16 years.

The world has warmed 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, nothing unusual is happening to sea level rise, and there is no evidence to support the theory that extreme weather events are occurring more frequently.

This is all easily verified, even if you are “uninformed or on the conspiratorial fringe”

Thanks for some elucidation on the matter. Interesting info re the US, will have to look that up!

I do wonder whether the complications with cap-and-trade have been balanced with its supposed advantages; on reading articles listing the pros and cons of each system, it appears not, however I realise these issues are multi-faceted and I don’t know enough about it to take a strong stand either way. Expressing there may be problems is all I can do at present.

I very much appreciate your response, thank you.

I’m not at all surprised.

The other Kyoto (european style) Cap and trade “Caps” the emissions for a country first, and then the price comes in as you trade with the carbon sinks and non polluting countries if you want to carry on doing business. I think the other is called interest and dividend, which I am less familiar with and gives payments in and out between countries and over time, and can make big green projects viable. Oh and both of these offer credits to countries that help out in the developing world.

I have also seen evidence that despite the bad rap the US gets for not being in Kyoto it is taking the issue seriously, and a lot of action we don’t hear about is at the state level and there is even an agreement with 6 states around NY and Canada to stop greenhouse and other cross border polluters.

In Europe there are different countries running different methods, and it seems to be the imbalance that has destroyed thier ETS, yet with their R&D structure and north sea oil declining in production capacity they are still the world leaders in green tech.

@ Anne
You’re saying the esteemed Judge, his legal and scientific advisers (we’re talking about real scientists here not bogus ones) got it all wrong?

There is a lot of debate among real scientists about the hows whys whens and even the if. There is even two schools of climate scientist (the modelers and the observers, who in the past have been more accurate) Be careful who you are calling a real scientist, always ask for the counter factual. And if someone has a question or reason why they doubt, we don’t need to call them names (deniers) just because we are also unable to answer their questions (yes a lot I can, some not). Oh – and just me, I wouldn’t be putting more faith in a judge (who chose him over a scientist?) than a lay person. Judges have got verdicts wrong before.

There needs to be global advocacy for bringing carbon taxation into international trade via the WTO. Thus nations that refuse to enact such local legislative action (because our local corporations control the government or we are still a developing nation etc) still have to comply whenever trade in goods occurs.

1) What has Kyoto delivered in terms of global commitment or is it just a talk fest and can more be done by being outside it?
2)Where is the commitment to capping emissions from the world’s largest polluters – the US, China, India, Brazil et cetra?

To those who bother to engage with Berne/Colin/Deniers: don’t argue with a fool; onlookers might not be able to tell the differance!
Those fools will never change. Don’t give them the satisfaction of a reaction.