lets hear..todays weather forcast
[quote jerry my numbers]

""The list of such things includes:
It's getting wetter,
It's getting drier,
It's getting snowier,
It's getting colder,""

[this wether forcast is brought to you thanks to manipluation that seeks to cover all bases
its cooling
its warming
its changing
so lets tax it

""Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas""

too right
LETS TAX IT
maybe we can use less
make it rain less
or make it rain more
maybe we can pay people to pump it underground

or subsidise those who get it
and tax those who dont

ps carbon dioxide is the biggest by quantity
not by affect

one methane is hundred times worse..than one carben do-oxide
one nitrous oxide is hundred times worse..than one carbon dioxide

WHY DONY WE TAX THEM?

cause the beloved farmers
and beloved miners produce most of that
and no govt ..would be allowed to tax those
[they have advertising dollar ability and a lobby that dont quit]

jeremy, our government and it advisors have made public statements as the basis for imposing a CO2 Tax.

These statements have been scientifically challenged, not that anyone would know much of this from our media however, the many questions that have been raised are of serious concern and material to informed public debate and decision making.

I’ve included the article by Bob Carter published recently in Quadrant, this is particularly relevant as he stresses the need for the “empirical science” which he claims is missing from the political statements.

If, as you said, you “know a very great deal more relevant science than most people” Perhaps you could point us to the empirical science that answers the questions raised by the public statements made by Gillard, Combet, Karoly, Flannery and Garnaut?

Thanking you in anticipation.

Article by Greg Combet, Minister for Climate Change – Questions arising.

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Combet2011March03.pdf

Letter from Malcolm Roberts to Professor Karoly. Questions arising.

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Karoly%20E-mail%20January,%202011.pdf

Article in Quadrant by Bob Carter- Questions Arising.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science

FOR CARBON TAX PROTESTS ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY SEE;
http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/?p=602

STOP THE NONSENSE BEFORE WE ALL ENTER TOTAL SERFDOM STATUS.

spindoc,

I also said that I know a very great deal less of the relevant science than the experts.

Regarding Combet's article, neither the article or the responses go into the scientific detail. The responses (as far as I read it) seem to be focussed on the meaning of the word "pollution". The fact that CO2 is necessary to life on earth is one of those things which all the scientists know - so what? I didn't see any dispute in the rest of it on any _scientific_ point.

The second reference was questions to Karoly - some questions specifically about something (not quoted) which Karoly is alleged to have said - I can't answer for him. Others are about the IPCC - not about science. For Q4 - the answer is to look at relevant scientific papers, eg the 1990 paper by Lorius et al, (detail in curmudgeon's post). Though I don't know what you want - your previous post seemed to indicate you don't like reading scientific statements.

The Quadrant article: goes off on the meaning of the word "pollution", tells us what every scientist knows about photosynthesis (which every scientist knows is completely and totally irrelevant to whether CO2 has a role as a greenhouse gas in climate change), but also has this fixation on 1998. (You may have heard that 1998 was considerably warmer than the years immediately before or after: an example of temperature variation for reasons other than CO2 - which increases steadily from year to year). Long term trends are something else (think of graphs of share prices!).

Anyhow he's mostly being political - he doesn't raise any scientific questions that can be answered by anything more specific than just "read the literature".

Can I suggest you read the scientific papers that curmudgeon cited, and compare them with the articles you've cited? What's in those papers represents how scientific research is done. To show that someone else's science is wrong requires the same sort of work, written up the same way - unfortunately it's equally difficult to understand without the necessary background knowledge.

Do we need science to impose a tax on pollution, Why incite co2 carbon is the tax. They are seperable ingredients.
Until a model is developed you are jumping at shadows. Iwould rather have Julia,s idea rather than Toni,s idea. of a tax.
Oil is the big killer, followed by coal. They must be bought under control.

Jeremy
just a simple question, is your last name "Sear" by any chance?