http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf

That's an absolute cop out by the population stretched countries with
runaway birthrates.

Australia should walk from this process, cut our losses, and work with
the countries in our region and our allies to forge our own way
forwards to focus entirely on adaptation.

The CPRS should be abandoned.

No one will argue with that.

That the bonds in CO2 molecules have characteristics that abosrob and
re-emit infrared, and that the 3 dimensional geometry of a linear non
IR source [sun] and a linear IR source [earths surface] and a random
reimission profile in 3 dimensions of a group of CO2 molecules in the
atmosphere creates warming is also  accepted.

No one will argue with that.

The argument against that being the start and the end of the matter
are:

- The CO2 warming effect has reached saturation and while is did cause
a rise there is no further rise as a result of more [only so much
sunlight hits earth - eventually the IR is absorbed as much as it can
be]. BUT there are no graphs you can produce that show the rate of
temperature rise has gone straight line. In fact those who disagree
with the link between CO2 and temperatire claim the world is cooling
as CO2 is increasing].

- Yes CO2 is a part of the picture but other things that vary have a
greater impact [variation in what the sun emits]. BUT the time for
electromagnetic radiation to pass through a distance that is the
radius of the sun is 2.3 secs [speed of light 299,792 km/sec; radius
of sun 700,000km] and so vibrations of outputs of processes associated
with EMR could not be of the magnitude of years or decades or
centuries, and the sun is 1/4 the density of the earth so that doesn't
support a thought that mechanism of transmission of changed
circumstances through the sun would be slower than in earth [you would
have to determine what is the slowest transmission of a process that
started in the centre of the earth to reach the crust with a bit of
interaction within that process some idea as to whether it could
vibrate in years or decades or 100's of years. The suns radius is 109
times larger than earth, so given it's 1/4 the density, lets say that
it has the capacity to push processes around in it for 25 times longer
than the earth. Form there given that the 99.9% of all the matter in
pur solar system it must be bloody dense in the middle, so as we can
observe that change transmission across space seems to be inversely
proportional to density [stand back from a fire and you feel it in
second, put a motlen lead in the pool and it will take some towards
minutes, put molten lead in a hole in the ground and back fill it and
it will take more etc etc] there could be some very slow change
transmission rates and in the centre of the sun and so processes could
bubble away in there for larger time periods . SO at least at a first
look at the topic here vibrations of process and thus process outputs
at the surface of the sun seem like they could be years and so on. BUT
given that the sun is a sphere it is rational that the bit we get on
earth is exactly the bit emitted by a piece of the suns surface
exactly the same area as the area as that occupied by the earth [pie r
sqaured]. Does the sun rotate? Yes but in days so if proceses are
trapped in a dense core working there way through outputing to the
surface as they do so the rotaion of the sun doesn't explain decades.
Monthly changes but not yearly changes.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/diam.html&edu=high
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/112503
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzdiameter.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_Sun_rotate_on_its_axis

And your still left with the thought that down the beach there are
frequencies within frequencies [waves, sun rise and set, moon rise and
set, earth wobble] and the existance of one doesn't deny the existance
of the other.