Hmm. . . so you are reverting to ad hominen attacks although I did not even actually say I supported Kyoto, nor did I state a position on AGW.
Rather I pointed out what the “POINT” of Kyoto was, so to prove that the person who wrote this article didn’t get it.
Based on your mildly reasonable line of argumentation, you accept that I am correct on the “POINT” of Kyoto and then pointed out that there was a major flaw in the actual effectiveness of the treaty.
The argumentation behind not restricting GHG emission in developing countries was basically this (you can skip reading assuming you know EVERYTHING about the AGW debate and have been scientifically astute and thoughtful):
The carbon “sinks” - which basically means the oceans - of CO2 have been filled over the last 300 years by industrialized countries burning fossil fuels. These countries have grown rich by doing so and now have the wealth to switch to lower carbon alternatives. The developing countries do not have this luxury and restricting their carbon use would be unfair and hurt a very large number of very poor people.
Now you may not think the science behind AGW is real and then that would be an argument that restricting GHG is absurd. That is fine. But the point of the discussion was about Kyoto itself. Not the underlying premise.
No offence, but you upset me. I’m Liechtensteinian.