Emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the greenhouse factor because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapour (moisture) in the atmosphere according to Miskolczi.

The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere varies on an annual cycle. This variation is usually around five percent (370 to 390ppm). The total contribution of humanity to CO2 levels is 1.7 percent which is well below the natural variation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So logically humanity’s CO2 emissions cannot be driving climate change.
Many politicians hide behind the peer review process. The peer review process has not vindicated the global warming hypothesis and I can't accept the assumption anthropogenic carbon emissions are the culprits behind CC.

Three things. Firstly, global temperatures have remained stable for the past 16 years despite the massive increase in CO2. Even if a little warming did occur it would be highly beneficial for the planet as things grow bigger and better with more atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Secondly, the IPCC, CRU, NOAA, CSIRO and other climate agencies have been found to be using corrupted data and to make wildly exaggerated claims regarding the future impacts of climate change. The claim of the IPCC is an educated guess, and not fact. They claim they think they are 90% right when blaming CO2 for climate change.

Thirdly, the Non Government Panel on climate Change (NIPCC) do not support the IPCC’s alarmist stance on climate change and have published a comprehensive rebuttal entitled, `Climate Change Reconsidered’. In addition there are now 31,487 scientists who have signed a petition to say they do NOT subscribe to the view that anthropogenic emissions are driving climate change.

The precautionary principle ignores the risks of going ahead with a carbon tax or ETS, which could be more severe than the risks of not going ahead. The precautionary principle is nothing more than one half of a risk-benefit analysis - the 'risk' half - and is therefore incapable of assessing the true impact of any emissions trading scheme

“Emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the greenhouse factor because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapour (moisture) in the atmosphere according to Miskolczi.”

Miskolczi is wrong. Water vapour in the atmosphere has increased by about 0.41 kg/m2 per decade over the last 2 decades http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract

“The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere varies on an annual cycle. This variation is usually around five percent (370 to 390ppm). The total contribution of humanity to CO2 levels is 1.7 percent which is well below the natural variation of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Human activities since the industrial revolution are responsible for about a third of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

“Three things. Firstly, global temperatures have remained stable for the past 16 years despite the massive increase in CO2.”

GISS, HadCRUT4 and UAH all give significant increases in temperature over the past 16 years. Cherry picking based on 1998 is getting less and less useful.

“Even if a little warming did occur it would be highly beneficial for the planet as things grow bigger and better with more atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

No it wouldn’t, because the increased temperature (and reduced water availability) will reduce production of key grain crops.

“In addition there are now 31,487 scientists who have signed a petition to say they do NOT subscribe to the view that anthropogenic emissions are driving climate change.”

The Oregon Petition again. A petition signed by veterinarians, medical doctors, engineers and cadavers. When the views of experts in climate science are analysed, they overwhelmingly agree with the general thrust of the IPCC http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Still arguing about the wrong problem ?