That's a long question, but I'll do my best to respond.
Firstly, I am not a scientist; as you know, I'm a lawyer, as are you. But I'm a passionate believer in science and I'm a passionate believer in empiricism as the basis of sound public policy. I spoke about a month ago to all the employees of Environment Canada in an open forum and emphasized exactly that, that their responsibility as scientists is to produce results based on observation and analysis that has integrity. The integrity of science is extremely important; we all succumb simply to orthodoxy in its absence.
So from my perspective, yes, science is important, and our positions relative to climate change need to be based on science. Canada has been quite clear in this regard. I was personally quite clear in saying early on in the major economies forum, struck by President Obama, that we should be embracing the concept that we should limit emissions to a temperature increase of two degrees above pre-industrial levels, that this should be the target that we agree on. Of course, in the time that has followed, the G-8 has taken exactly that approach, as has the Commonwealth, and certainly that's the basis of what's taking place at the UNFCCC.
There are a number of things implicit within that if you adopt that science. One is the recognition that, in the developed world, emissions must have either peaked or be peaking quite quickly and beginning a downward trajectory. I think it's fair to say that's happening, but there's also the requirement that in the developing world we need to see significant abatement of what are projected to be the business-as-usual emissions.
Stated simply, the problem with the Kyoto Protocol is twofold. Firstly, the Americans did not ratify it--