The Earth's climate has been changing since Day One. To expect it to somehow stop changing because change would be bothersome is naive to the point of absurdity. Of course the climate is changing and probably for the warmer. Does that mean that human activity is conclusively the cause of this change? Nope. Was human activity the cause for all of the other changes throughout geologic history? Nope.

Simple-minded dependence on computer models is not a rational way to make policy for the future, especially when the models can't even accurately model what has actually happened in the past. Your "70%" belief is charming but scientifically baseless. Without validation, we have no way of knowing if those models are 70% valid, 30% valid, or have zero validity.

Even if the Kyoto Accords are complied with fully by the US and Western nations, it does nothing about the emissions from "developing nations." Since you seem to think so highly of the models, what do you think of the analysis that showed full compliance with Kyoto would only reduce the amount of warming expected by a tiny fraction of a degree? Be consistant - if you believe the models are good, then you have to accept when they say that Kyoto doesn't stop global warming and really doesn't even slow it down much.

The Kyoto Accords call for a reduction by several percent below the 1990 levels. Specificallly, what do you think we'd have to do to meet that reduction goal? No hand-waving allowed - I want to hear specifics. What types of technology will have to be developed to meet those goals, or how much will we have to reduce energy consumption and production? How much will that cost? Then, compare that cost to the cost of dealing with the warming that's going to happen anyway. Remember, I want specifics, not hand-waving.