scientists say Kyoto cuts not enough

So now we have a report confirming what many of us have believed all along - that emissions cuts will not have a significant effect on global warming.

Given the fact that the vast majroity of greenhouse gases (both in volume and potency) are not man-made, this seems seems to be a tacit admission that global warming is largely not a man-caused issue.

So let's say that regardless of the cause we agree that a cooler globe is desirable. That means we need to get to net zero or net negative carbon emissions, or employ other measures.

Is the socio-economic toll of the current approach of emission conservation worthwhile, or should the efforts be put into technologies that can actually have a significant impact on global temperature?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/

Australia opens first airline to Antarctica via ice runway

60 years ago, such an announcement of "man conquering nature" may have been met with enthusiasm.

These days, while the purpose of the airline is supposedly to facilitate environmental researchers, one can't help but dread the inevitable influx of tourists and ponder the irony of the pollution of the pristine environment this service will cause. Australia's environmental minister said last year "There is no reason why this runway could not be used down the track for a tourism operation."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/12/eaice212.xml

Video here

The earth is getting warmer overall

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/weather/12/13/warm.weather.ap/index.html

Arctic melt

How do you explain away the hard data on the Arctic melt?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/11/arctic.melt.ap/index.html