Thanks for your input. This thread should stay on the message(s), not the messengers, although you have made it abundantly clear that you have equal contempt for both messages and messengers when it comes to this issue.
So you would argue on focusing on adaptation rather than mitigation?
Kyoto is flawed, no doubt, but it is due to expire in 5 years anyway. It does have some flexibility in how its commitments can be met, however, so I don't buy the apocalyptic vision you offer of its implementation.
|