Kyoto comes quietly into force…

The Kyoto Protocol came into force yesterday with only RTE it seems giving the subject any decent air time (sound file). Apparently only 4 per cent of Ireland’s energy outputs are renewable.

And the WWF calls on DETI to put together a strategy to tackle its status as “the worst climate culprit in the UK with CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions 3.0% and 1.9% higher respectively in 2002, compared to 1990 levels”. Ah, if only we had politicians in a position to care and do something about such matters.

  • David Vance

    Hope Slugger readers realise that Ireland’s CO2 emissions are currently skyrocketing and will have increased by an enormous 30% by 2010.

    The Kyoto protocols are just pious words from the socialist Governments around the globe – a trojan horse aimed at the powerhouse US economy.

    I have quoted Prof Philip Stott over on ATW who provides a helpful run down of how useless the Euroland countries are at controlling their CO2 emissions. Read it – and then you’ll see why the media coverage is just so much HOT air.

  • aquifer

    Millions of people dependent on subsistence agriculture in low lying areas of Egypt and Bangladesh may be displaced by rising sea levels, aside from risks from runaway global warming.

    Ireland has a huge wind resource alongside a dependence on gas imported from Britain.
    Britain itself will be dependent on gas imports from Russia, Algeria, the ‘stans etc.

    Per Capita emissions: Britain 2.9, USA 6.5, Indonesia 0.7, China 1.1, Egypt 0.8, India 0.5.

    Chinas oil consumption grew by something like 35% last year, and the Indian economy is growing strongly.

    Hardly politics though, is it?

  • Ringo

    David –

    In comparision to the real growth (using 1995 prices) in GDP and GNP since 1991 have both already exceeded 100% it is pretty amazing that it has only ‘skyrocketed’ by 26% at this stage.

    GDP – €42bn (1991) to €97bn (2003)
    GDP – €37bn (1991) to €76bn (2003)

    So as an economy the Republic is significantly more efficient in terms of CO2 emmissions than in 1991.

    Your suggestion idea that European Governments are trying to shackle the US economy is absolutely ludicrious. What would that achieve aside from having horrendous knock on effects for their own economies?

    The complete abdication of responsibility by the Bush Administration is a disgrace, but as a relatively efficient economy in terms of emmisions it is far less significant than the trends in China in particular.

  • Mick Fealty

    I note too that Governor Arnie in California is preparing his unilateral efforts to cap CO2 emissions.

  • 6countyprod

    Anyone want to talk about the Kyoto Protocol.

    Seems like it is dead in the water.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Vance is just trolling. Remember – God wants you to drive your 6 litre SUV, burn up all the oil we’ve got and keep cutting down the rainforests. It’s what Jesus would do.

  • ch in dallas

    May I remind learned counsel that Kyoto died during the Clinton admin by a vote of 95-0 in the senate. Bush just stated the obvious that it is moribund. A better argument for decreasing emmisions in the U.S. is cleaner air and reducing military spending to keep the sea lanes open for tankers. But Ringo has it right, increased efficiency relative to output keeps the strong economy needed to invest in even better tech. China’s the one that’s really gonna be belching the gas. I remain, madams and sirs, your humble servent

  • mamapajamas

    Ch in Dallas is right: The SENATE deep-sixed the Kyoto Treaty in the US in 1998. Clinton signed the thing knowing that even his own party (including the notiouosly green Al Gore!) would not support it.

    The US President does not do treaties on his own… all of them have to be ratified by the Senate.

    Further, it appears that greenhouse gasses may not be the cause at all… or an insignificant contributor at best… and scientific consensus is starting to shift toward SOLAR warming.

    Global warming on Mars was verified in Dec 2001:

    here and here
    and was REcommented upon here just a few days ago.

    Quote from second article: “If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.”

    Global warming is, furthermore, being discusses concerning Jupiter, although no one in that Berkeley group will commit to a reason for Jupiter’s 70-year long warming trend.

    Finally, this past year Solar warming was confirmed in hard mathematical data collected by a satellite over a 30-year period.

    They’re being very cagey about this, but astronomers have HARD data to discuss, not mere theories such as the greenhouse gasses theory.

    So… is global warming being caused by greenhouse gasses, or is it happening because the sun is throwing billions of tons of superheated matter into our upper atmosphere? To believe that greenhouse gasses is the one and only cause of global warming, one must also believe that the Martians are driving around in millions of SUV’s out there, given that the global warming on Mars (thinner atmosphere) is much more dramatic and extreme than that on Earth.

    The sun is getting warmer, people, and we’re probably entering a warming cycle similar to the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1000-1200 years ago, an era marked by bumper crops, excellent weather, and long-ranging explorations by the Norsemen, who were no longer afraid of being locked out of their home ports by ice.

    And there is nothing that waving a piece of paper signed in Japan at the sun is going to do to stop the warming.

    Astronomers and environmentalists seriously need to sit down and discuss this…together.

  • mamapajamas

    Broken link on the Jupiter story… here it is.

    Jupiter story

  • ch in dallas

    Mamapajamas, I like your style, girl!! The 1st time you see someone blame Rita or Katrina on global warming from lack of Kyoto, I give you permission to unload the full powers of both your mighty brain lobes on them!!

  • mamapajamas

    Thank you, CH :).

    One other thing I forgot to put in the previous message. There are environmentalists who are looking at the Mars warming data and thinking twice about the CO2 thing on Earth.

    They’re not completely dismissing it, but are looking at it from a new angle.

    What the Mars data shows is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. In the case of Mars, the reason for that is obvious. The upper layer of that “snow” that’s melting at the Mars South Pole is actually frozen CO2. Naturally, since CO2 converts quickly to a gas once it’s melted, there’s more of it in the atmosphere than there was several years back.

    What that particular group are starting to think is… maybe the CO2 increase is not causing global warming, but instead maybe there’s some as yet undiscovered process where global warming is causing the increase in CO2. They’re studying that, trying to see if they’ve overlooked a mechanism that might be doing that. It was just looking at the Mars data that got them thinking along those lines. Earth doesn’t have CO2 ice layers at the poles, but this shows that there are a wide number of ways to be thinking about this problem without brain-locking on one viewpoint.

    To our friends in Ireland, I am NOT saying that creating greenhouse gasses is OK, or that dirty air and water are OK, nor am I trying to make excuses for anything. But I AM saying that we need to stop being hysterical about global warming and look at more than one side of the story. If there ever was a scientific consensus concerning greenhouse gasses, there isn’t one now. People who claim that there IS a consensus are looking at polling data that is more than 10 years old. And entirely too many of them are also jealously protecting research grants, consultation fees, and book sales. Always follow the money, even when it leads back to kindly Professor Plum.

    Most importantly, whatever is causing global warming, the environment is important, and it’s going to take a long technological change-over to bring pollution under control. So we can’t go off half-cocked about this. Stifling use of energy will cut down our technological capabilities, and the fewer technological capabilities we have, the less likely we are to find the answers to pollution. If you think technologies are the cause of pollution, and that cutting use of energy will clean up the environment all by itself, look at 3rd World nations were people are living close to the Earth, but are in what are virtually toxic waste dumps… from entirely natural causes of living life. Technology is the answer, not the problem.

  • Henry94

    The irresponsible decision by the Bush administration to send probes to Mars has clearly disrupted the delicate ecological balance on that planet leading to catastrophic climate change.

  • 6countyprod

    Looks like liberals aren’t really interested in Kyoto (apart from maybe CS). They just want to use the Kyoto Protocol as another sham stick with which to beat Bush.

    What a pathetic bunch!

  • ch in dallas

    So now America is destroying the climate on TWO planets??? I won’t even ask for your proof. And for our next trick, I guess we’ll blot out the sun!

  • Robert Keogh

    Has anyone else noticed the tremendous increase in the number of serious hurricanes hitting the US. Started after Bush came into office. Obviously god is punishing his regime.

  • ch in dallas

    OK mamapajamas, it’s happened. Unshieth thy intellect, oh Mama of the tribe of pajamas, and shew no mercy to thine opponent.

  • mamapajamas

    You know what outraged me the most about these stories of global warming on other planets, and solar warming?

    The fact that I knew about these stories and still had to go out onto the Internet and hunt for them. The main stream media never covered any of them, in spite of the fact that these were NASA press releases initially handled as being equally important to anything else they’ve ever said about global warming. Entire economies could be ruined by the Kyoto Treaty, which may very well be based upon a mistake. Solar warming is one of the most important stories in years.

    Why isn’t the media covering it? What mechanism do they use to decide that this bit of research can be ignored, but that bit of research goes into the headlines and highlighted on the evening news?

    What outrages me is that I actually DO know the answers to those questions, and those answers have to do with smug self-righteousness.

  • mamapajamas

    Hmmm… I thought Robert was being sarcastic.

    Surely he can’t mean what he just said, given the record that nine of the top ten hurricanes struck the US before we started naming them in 1950? Further, there were 21 tropical cyclones in 1933, a record that hasn’t been beaten yet. It could happen this year, since we have only 21 names (to match the record number) and are already at Rita. If that happens they’ll go to the Greek alphabet.

    But the fact remains that we don’t know how many and how often and how strong hurricanes were before we started tracking them. We only have folk stories about this or that storm, every one “the worst in history” for the locals where it struck. In fact, hurricanes tend hit in batches then chill out in 30-40 year cycles, a fact well-known to the old folks in “Hurricane Alley” (Florida and the Gulf of Mexico Coast).

    My grandfather told me that 40 years ago, and his observations have been confirmed recently by hurricane experts, who tell us that ocean currents in the South Atlantic are the mechanism that starts them.

  • 6countyprod

    Robert, you are hilarious!

  • ch in dallas

    Well done, Mama. They shall know the truth and the truth shall set them free. By the way, we don’t have a regime in the U.S., we have a democraticly elected government.(However close the election happens to be!)

  • Keith M

    The Kyoto Protocol is like the EU Constitution, it’s going nowhere. The problem is that the politicians who get involved in these negotiations have to report back to their national electorates and no leader is going to sign up to something which their people are going to see as bad for them. Or if they (like Chirac) are stupid enough to do so, the people soon knock the wheels off their carriage. It’s called democracy.

  • Comrade Stalin

    “Looks like liberals aren’t really interested in Kyoto (apart from maybe CS). “

    Nothing to do with liberals. Pretty much every first-world country ratified the treaty except the USA.

    I find it a bit weak to say “it will hurt our economy”. The abolition of slavery in the US undoubtedly hurt the economy by causing labour market inflation, but I’m sure everyone agrees that the recovery was swift.

    mamapajamas, global warming is accepted by the scientific community as a matter of consensus; it is seldom disputed, and a couple of debunking links aren’t going to change that, any more than a couple of links claiming that the World Trade Centers were demolished rather than collapsed prove anything. Going by your quote from the NASA link, it doesn’t seem to dispute global warming but merely suggests alternative hypotheses that might explain changes in temperature here.

  • Robert Keogh

    I’m just paraphrasing Bush.

    The argument that global warming is not caused by humans is dependent on 97%+ of the scientists in the field being wrong and those without any scientific training being right. As a general rule of thumb those that spend years working and studying something generally know more about it than those who haven’t. Besides if they are right and we do nothing – we’re screwed.

    Watching the global warming debate (I long, long ago gave up engaging in it) along with the evolution debate certainly gives me an insight to a solution for Fermi’s paradox – life is too friggin stupid to last.

  • mamapajamas

    Comrade Stalin: “mamapajamas, global warming is accepted by the scientific community as a matter of consensus”

    Uh… you’d better re-read my messages.

    I don’t contend that global warming isn’t happening, and in FACT contend that it is ALSO happening on Mars and Jupiter… and that is not a theory, it is fact. Those two planets are getting hotter.

    And so is the sun. This also is not a theory. It is physically hotter because it is more turbulent than normal.

    What I said is that it is the CAUSE that is in dispute, and it most definitely IS. The cause has always been disputed.

    So where do you think I denied that global warming is happening?

  • mamapajamas

    Robert: “I’m just paraphrasing Bush.”

    No, you made a snarky remark about “God” punishing Bush’s “regime”. Bush has never made any comment about God “punishing” anyone for any reason; that is nothing but a joke between liberals. That was the reason I thought you were mocking liberals… sarcasm must have a grain of truth in it to be funny. It only made sense as sarcasm if you were making fun of the liberal side.

    And as for this: “The argument that global warming is not caused by humans is dependent on 97%+ of the scientists in the field being wrong and those without any scientific training being right.”

    … 97% of scientists have been wrong before. In fact, the “consensus” has been wrong routinely, from Copernicus through Einstein. Look how many scientists were positive that it was not possible to break the sound barrier.

    Further, this “consensus” everyone keeps talking about IS breaking up. It’s been collapsing since 17,000 scientists sent a petition to the IPCC nearly 10 years ago saying that there is NO evidence that greenhouse gasses “cause” global warming, and that none of them claimed to know the cause. The IPCC “finding” about CO2 that was put into the Kyoto Treaty was a lie. No one argues about whether global warming is happening any more, the dispute is over the cause.

    If Bush said what you quoted above, that doesn’t change my mind in the least. He isn’t an astronomer, and isn’t watching the rest of the solar system heating up. He also apparently hasn’t seen those NASA reports that the news media seems to be working hard to conceal. Repeat, I KNEW about those reports and had to work hard to find them on the Internet! Someone who doesn’t know about them isn’t likely to run across them by accident.

    And apparently, some environmentalists aren’t checking with other fields, either.

    That is the reason environmentalists and astronmers need to talk to each other to figure this thing out. Specialization can be crippling if it isn’t handled carefully.

  • Comrade Stalin

    mp, sorry. You didn’t dispute global warming. What you are doing on the other hand is arguing that we are nothing to do with it.

    “I don’t contend that global warming isn’t happening, and in FACT contend that it is ALSO happening on Mars and Jupiter… and that is not a theory, it is fact.”

    Are you one of those people who doesn’t understand the difference between the word “theory” and the word “fact” ? Let’s start from the top. How did you establish that Mars and Jupiter are getting warmer ?

    “And so is the sun. This also is not a theory. It is physically hotter because it is more turbulent than normal.”

    How did you establish the parameters for normal activity on the sun ? How did you measure the sun’s “turbulence” (??!) or temperature ? Are we talking about the sun’s core temperature or surface temperature ?

  • Comrade Stalin

    What you’re saying here, mp, is that some scientists disagree. That’s pretty normal; scientists disagree all the time.

    What’s more is that scientists are wrong quite often as well, as you have said, although you clearly think they’re right when it suits you, going by your point about the thousands of scientists whom you say wrote to the IPCC to refute the involvement of CO2 in global warming (if they “didn’t know what caused it” then clearly they weren’t in possession of any data to rule out the effects of carbon dioxide surely?).

    What you seem to have ignored is that scientists are frequently right. Look at the discovery of the nuclear bomb for example. Pretty much right up until the point where it exploded, the whole thing was nothing other than equations on a piece of paper. If someone told you in 1930 that such a device was possible, would you have believed it ? (the Japanese didn’t believe it for a time, even after it was dropped on them).

    “If Bush said what you quoted above, that doesn’t change my mind in the least. He isn’t an astronomer, and isn’t watching the rest of the solar system heating up.”

    Regale us with your data showing the heating up of the solar system and how this is connected with the phenomenon of global warming.

    “Repeat, I KNEW about those reports and had to work hard to find them on the Internet!”

    I’ve got no doubt that you searched day and night to find a single source to back up the conclusion you’d already arrived at. It’s pretty clear from your contributions here that your conclusions are not derived from a dispassionate examination of all the available data, but from your personal political and economic disposition.

  • mamapajamas

    Comrade: “you clearly think they’re right when it suits you, going by your point about the thousands of scientists whom you say wrote to the IPCC to refute the involvement of CO2 in global warming (if they “didn’t know what caused it” then clearly they weren’t in possession of any data to rule out the effects of carbon dioxide surely?).”

    Exactly. You’ve just swerved into my point. They said THEY DIDN’T KNOW what was causing it, all 17,000 of them, not that global warming didn’t exist. Their entire point was that the Kyoto Treaty was written to look as if all of the scientists who worked on IPCC agreed that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses were causing global warming, and the point of the petition was to set their names down as being in dispute of that idea.

    The petition says:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

    17,000 scientists agreed with that statement and signed the petition. To this day, there is STILL no convincing evidence that global warming is being caused by greenhouse gasses, and there is no “consensus” on the greenhouse gas cause.

    However, it is an indesputable fact that glaciers are melting on Mars and at an astounding rate (photos in links in my prior message show clear, visible differences in photos from 1998 and 2001), or that the large storm systems are breaking up on Jupiter, an activity that would be caused by global warming under Jupiter’s atmospheric conditions.

    Further, the turbulance on the sun is indesputably more volatile than it has been in recent centuries. We’re getting record numbers of solar flares when we should be moving toward a minimum, and the last maximum in this cycle had an extrodinary double peak.

    So… do I clearly think I’m right when it suits me? Geesh! Facts are facts. This isn’t a matter of what I “think” and what you “think”. There’s an enormous difference between a “fact” and a “theory”, and that difference is this:

    Water is H2O. No amount of theorizing or conjecture is going to turn it into ice cream. That is a “fact”. As the temperatures of the sun, Mars and Jupiter are facts. They’re getting hotter.

    I might be able to turn water into ice cream if I add in some dehydrated milk, some sugar, some ice, a couple of other ingredients, but it would probably taste pretty nasty. But it might qualify as “ice cream” to some people. THAT is a “theory”. It is conjecture. It is disputable. Any number of people can come up with different ideas. Just as the greenhouse gas theory is a “theory”. Anyone can challenge the contention that greenhouse gasses cause global warming, and 17,000 scientists chose to do so between 1997-2001.

    The fact that they don’t know what’s causing global warming doesn’t mean that they’re dumb, it means that they’re honest enough to say that they don’t know.

    That petition was sent in 2001. Global warming on Mars was discovered in December that same year. And it has been making people think even deeper on the subject.

    Keep your eyes and ears open. This subject isn’t finished yet.

  • mamapajamas

    Comrade Stalin, you’ve just convinced me that you aren’t paying attention at all.

    “Regale us with your data showing the heating up of the solar system and how this is connected with the phenomenon of global warming.”

    That was in the first message in the Solar Warming link. Page back.

    Comrade: “I’ve got no doubt that you searched day and night to find a single source to back up the conclusion you’d already arrived at.”

    Personally, I’d call NASA a pretty good source for astronomical data.

  • 6countyprod

    CS, I think the point is that the main stream media prominently reports that which backs up its liberal, left-leaning philosophy, and buries news and reports that might challenge it. No wonder it is sometimes difficult to find information.

    Tony Blair made some very important comments last week concerning Kyoto. If he had repeated or emphasised his support for Kyoto, it would have made front page news, because it would have made the US look bad. Because he didn’t, his comments were concealed behind a screen of irrelevant drivel.

    Be honest, comrade, did you even hear Blair’s comments mentioned on television or radio, or did you read about it in the papers? Chances are you didn’t, because ‘they’ don’t want you to know. Why is it we have to get the real news via the back door of the internet?

    Some quotes from an internet report:

    “Onstage with former president Bill Clinton at a midtown Manhattan hotel ballroom, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was going to speak with “brutal honesty” about Kyoto and global warming, and he did.

    Blair, a long time supporter of the Kyoto treaty, further prefaced his remarks by noting, “My thinking has changed in the past three or four years.” So what does he think now? “No country, he declared, “is going to cut its growth.” That is, no country is going to allow the Kyoto treaty, or any other such global-warming treaty, to crimp — some say cripple — its economy.

    Looking ahead to future climate-change negotiations, Blair said of such fast-growing countries as India and China, “They’re not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto.” India and China, of course, weren’t covered by Kyoto in the first place, which was one of the fatal flaws in the treaty. But now Blair is acknowledging the obvious: that after the current Kyoto treaty — which the US never acceded to — expires in 2012, there’s not going to be another worldwide deal like it.

    So what will happen instead? Blair answered: “What countries will do is work together to develop the science and technology….There is no way that we are going to tackle this problem unless we develop the science and technology to do it.” Bingo! That’s what eco-realists have been saying all along, of course — that the only feasible way to deal with the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming is through technological breakthroughs, not draconian cutbacks.

    Blair concluded with a rhetorical question-and-answer: “How do we move forward, post-Kyoto? It can only be done by the major players coming together and pooling their resources, to find their way to come together.”

    Interestingly, these words from Blair, addressing an audience of a thousand at the Sheraton just a few blocks north of Times Square, failed to get any pickup in the media. Even The New York Times, published just down the street, ran a story that dwelt on the star power in the room, including King Abdullah of Jordan, Jesse Jackson, and George Stephanopoulos. “Isn’t this awesome?” said one participant, and those words seemed to reflect fully the Times’ take on the event.

    For its part The Washington Post offered this bland headline: “Clinton Gathers World Leaders Nonpartisan Conference Focuses on Global Improvement,” making no mention of Blair’s global warming remarks.”

    full report on Blair’s speech

  • mamapajamas

    “CS, I think the point is that the main stream media prominently reports that which backs up its liberal, left-leaning philosophy, and buries news and reports that might challenge it. No wonder it is sometimes difficult to find information.”

    Exactly, 6CP 🙂 The fact that I had to hunt so hard to find 4-year old NASA releases that somehow never made it to the alleged “news” says a lot. The news media hangs on to and reports every word NASA says when one of their environmentalists is talking about the GOES satellite or some other environmental issue that goes along with their agenda. It was only when NASA put out press releases making the flat statement that global warming isn’t a local phenomenon at all that the news media loses interest. Precisely when the news is important… but doesn’t match the liberal agenda.

  • Robert Keogh

    mamapajamas,

    not meant to be snarky. I find the whole idea of a god ridiculous to begin with….

    The article you cite “Sun’s Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming” in refering to tree ring growth in 13th through 17th centuries neglects to mention that these climate changes have been adequately explained by alternate theories based on hard evidence of volcanic events and in one instance meteor impact.

    The article goes on to say that solar warming is not a major contributor to global warming:

    The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.

    Show me some links to Nature, Science or other top level peer-reviewed journal supporting your case that global warming is not caused by man but by solar warming. If there were such convincing data Nature and Science would be vying to print it.

    And no, the Oil Drillers Monthly Gazette won’t cut it.

  • peteb
  • 6countyprod

    Robert, you are on your hobbyhorse again. We all know you say you did not believe there is a God/godThe fool hath said in heart: there is no God. (Psalm 14.1)

  • mamapajamas

    “The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.

    So what is melting the glaciers on Mars? Or reducing the number of storms on the surfact of Jupiter? It isn’t possible that this man is simply mistaken about his personal opinion that he drew from the hard data, is it?

    And… BTW… it’s pretty obvious that data collected by NASA is good. So is information from the JPL (which is a branch of NASA) and Berkeley University (which was using NASA data).

    I’ll believe those sources before I’ll believe Nature magazine.

  • ch in dallas

    6countyprod, Ah don’t forget, saying you don’t believe in God gives you an air of sophistication and your liberal bona fides. Only us stupid Yanks fill the churches on Sunday, not knowing that man is the ultimate. But that’s off thread.

  • 6countyprod

    ch, we can fill the churches here too. Robert’s problem might be with people who say they believe in God, but don’t act like it. Just a guess.

    Someone once said, I think it was John Wesley, that there is a god-shaped vacuum in every man (or woman). When you check out even the most primitive and isolated tribe, be it in Brazil, Borneo or Burkina Faso, you will find that they all have some concept of God in their culture.

  • ch in dallas

    6cp, Fair enough comment. Jesus had a problem with that as well. Why bring it into a global warming debate, however? The secular left, I only speak of the U.S., has a certain regal smugness as they use the courts to, for instance, try take the word God out of the Pledge of Allegience. The new derogatory term here for Christian is “Christer.” I guess all of this is off thread.

  • 6countyprod

    So, someone out there must be paying attention. Finally, some reporting on Blair’s thoughts on Kyoto:

    Guardian Sunday, Sept. 25, In comments earlier this month which have only just emerged, the Prime Minister talked about a ‘post-Kyoto’ era…

    These comments have been on the internet for about a week. The Guardian folks must think we are all a bunch of idiots.

    Telegraph

    Times

    Guardian