We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Betsy makes a good point when she asks why the Dems are not pushing for the US signing Kyoto, now that they control congress. Is it possible that they don't really believe it? Or that they know it's a political loser?
Bjorn Lomborg, who is clearly an anthropogenic warming believer, notes in the Daily Star re the EU emission goals:
But nobody sees fit to reveal the agreement's dirty little secret: It will do next to no good - and again at very high cost. According to one well-established and peer-reviewed model, the effect of the EU cutting emissions by 20 percent will postpone warming in the 21st century by just two years, yet the cost will be about $90 billion annually. It will be costly, because Europe is a costly place to cut carbon-dioxide, and it will be inconsequential, because the EU will account for only about 6 percent of all emissions in the 21st century. So the new treaty will be an even less efficient use of our resources than the old Kyoto Protocol.
His whole piece here. Indeed, even if there is real climate change, and even if it is partly man-made, nothing that is done will do anything more than raise taxes, raise prices, and raise government control over people and the economy. But effect the earth's climate? Not possible.