Read somewhere? Then it must be true.

I referenced a paper earlier that showed a full-tilt compliance to Kyoto for a full century postpones the predicted temperature rise by maybe 5 years. 7 days postponement seems reasonable (if admittedly meaninglessly below the noise level) given how few nations are actually meeting the emissions reduction targets and given that Kyoto expires in 2012.

A more fruitful strategy on your part, rather than just denying the claims and papers I put forth, might be to counter with studies and evidence that demonstrate how Kyoto will significantly combat global warming and how the benefits outweigh the costs.

I'm not advocating the Kyoto plan specifically. It's just one example of things that can be done. And I'd take pessimistic estimates (or overly optimistic ones for that matter) about its possible effectiveness with a large mountain of salt. Both sides have exaggerations, misinformation, skewed "scientific" authorities, and plain old lies out there.

That's just swell. Everyone says to listen to the science. As soon as I do, it is summarily dismissed. If both sides are exaggerating, etc. then there is no reason to listen to either of them. We have no positive basis (in the sense of direct evidence) for a particular policy, Kyoto or otherwise. Uncertainty and doubt are not arguments for anything.

Define "nearly impossible", and why.

Kyoto is already a failure and even if it was adhered to, it would have little effect. A treaty calling for far more drastic cuts will have less of a chance being signed and especially, less of a chance of being adhered to.
Global warming is going to happen over the next century. We cannot stop it. As Bob Dylan says, “you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone.” I have been suggesting that we focus our resources on the swimming (that is, adapting) first because it is something we can do over the next century.

Early efforts to accomplish anything are almost always difficult. Ask the Wright Brothers, then look what their little hop led to.

Kyoto is not a plan to develop a specific technology. Nor is it a plan to reduce global warming in the long term. It is a plan to limit CO2 emissions with the hope that it does something for global warming.

And how do you insure that money not used for one will go to the other? Or that that isn't how CO2 will be lowered?

Kyoto calls for lowering of CO2 emissions, not for any specific means of achieving it. We know that we have to move to a non-fossil fuel economy. Spend directly on that technology (tax credits, etc.) instead of calling for CO2 reductions and hoping that a particular technology comes out of it.

People tend to do what they can get away with. Kyoto and measures like it may help put a slight hammerlock on them (assuming, of course, they're ever enforced).

We shouldn't hammerlock people. Energy is our friend. Energy is why we live so comfortably today. Our goal, if anything, should be to have everybody living as well as Al Gore does—for the long term, of course. People of the future will be richer than we are today. It doesn't make sense for people in the developing world to have to sacrifice too much just to benefit some future rich guy.