"If your issue with a treaty is economic fight it on that basis, not by making questionable science front and center as well as ignoring basic facts of chemistry. I was never keen on Kyoto for several reasons. Number 1 being it was obviously DOA with a Republican congress that did have legitimate economic concerns."

Specifically it was the Senate [one of Senate's function is to vote on treaties]. And to be fair to Dem, a vast majority of them voted against it. Had it been something the Dems favored [and thought they could gain in the eyes of the public] they would voted for it especially if it wouldn't have passed. But they most of them didn't want part of their re-election campaign that they tried to pass Kyoto.
Most of the America public do not think global warming is serious issue- Gore and all the other wild news reports have done little to change that public opinion. Everyone knows including Gore, that even if we could meet the goals set by Kyoto, that it would not actually have any significant affect on CO2 and even less affect on global temperature. Gore favor it because saw it as a foot in the door- something that would lead to further laws restricting economic growth.

"Number 2 being that it obviously wasn't going to do much good without controlling India and China. Number 3 the solution is obviously technical not political. That said it really bothers me to hear Americans act like everyone else should bear just as much a burden as us when we have been the largest contibutor for decades. We should be leading the way in developing new technology."

Well, the US govt has wasted a lot money on fusion research. But using more fission nuclear reactors would do more to reduce CO2 and in shorter time frame than anything else. New technology isn't the issue as much as providing location to put nuclear waste. And having a legal frame work promote the use of nuclear power so that America public can live in a safer and cleaner environment.
Instead, we have numerous public figures demanding unrealistic requirements and using various subversive methods to "rid out" of nuclear power.

In America unlike say France, we can "afford" to limit nuclear energy, because we have a nearly unlimited supply of coal and the union support that want to protect this type of labor.