Just to mention another famous futurist. The years 2008 through 2012 are referred to by Nostradamus as the "Time of Troubles", a period full of war, despair, and evil, but also of hope and promise.

> a period full of war, despair, and evil, but also of hope and promise.
So no change there then.

Sorry, but vacuous predictions about "there will be a war in a far off land" just don't cut the mustard, because that is pretty much true, pretty much all of the time. In typical revisionist interpretation after the fact, the adherents claim success.

Pick your disaster, rinse and wring your waffley prediction and voilà, instant "validation".

yeah theres been constant war

1914-1918 www1
1939 - 1945 ww2
1945-1990 cold war
1990 - 2007 w.o.t etc

So you think there will be also be war in 2012? The war on terror is not really a war, and is mainly an excuse to start a war at any time.

> yeah theres been constant war
You can do much better than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars

> So you think there will be also be war in 2012?
Given the above list, it's a damn good bet that you'll find at least one somewhere on the planet at sometime during the year.

The good news for 2012 is that the Koyoto Protocol will come to an end.

The USA did not sign the protocol because it would have levied a carbondioxide tax on countries regardless of the fact that some countries like the USA are net corbondioxide consumers. The USA is a net carbondioxide consumer because of its large forests and agriculture.

Agreed...very good news. Which means, of course, that the Kyotophiles will be looking for a way to either increase the duration, or else get a new, probably even more-restrictive 'agreement' in place.



How are you defining 'signed' in this case? It is my understanding that President Clinton did in fact sign something related to the treaty (not sure if it was the treaty itself or not, although I think it was), but never sent it in to Congress for ratification. If I am incorrect in this understanding, please point me to a source of correct information.

Please also note that I will be skeptical of the 'correct information' content of any clearly cyannic sites.

In that case I stand corrected, the thing was never ratified then. The main reason for me was the explanation why it was never ratified. I think someone knowledgable about carbondioxide net usage explained that to Bill Clinton after the fact.

President Bush may not know how to pronounce "nukilar" correctly, but he knew all about carbondioxide net usage of the USA, in contrast to Al Gore.

Finally, I've found someone who understands...

There's also potentially severe economic affects that may have come into play by signing the Kyoto Protocol... or so I've heard...

> The USA is a net carbondioxide consumer because of its large forests and agriculture.
Rubbish.
Plant/tree growth is just a short-time carbon lifecycle. You eat the food you produce, and emit CO2. Wood which rots or burns emits CO2. Even if you export vast amounts of these products, it might look good for the US, but it's still only an equilibrium on a global scale.

Plant growth can only remove CO2 if you permanently take it out of the carbon cycle, by say burying timber in deep mines (to become coal once more at some future time).

If you burn any fossil fuel at all, you're adding to the problem.

> There's also potentially severe economic affects that may have come into play by signing the Kyoto Protocol...
> or so I've heard...
Or so you've been told by those with a vested interest.
But those with a different view might regard it as an opportunity to be capitalised on.