>I have little interest in the subject as I know CO2 can not cause global warming

Struth, Hasbeen, that's absolutely astonishing! So astonishing that I think the chances that you're telling the truth are (very conservatively) less than one in a million. Still, I'd like to be proved wrong, so please tell us:
How did you gain this wondrous knowledge?
What prevents CO2 from causing global warming?
What is the real cause of the global warming we've been experiencing?

CO2 is greening the planet, it's what plants breathe.
http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
With regard to 'global warming' I think that you should be looking for something that creates deserts Aiden, not something that will turn them into rainforests.
I suspect that without CO2 there would be no life at all.

Back to the article...climate change debates are a total waste of time on OLO! Too many non scientific experts :)

There is no relationship between cutting tax rates and wages or productivity.

From 1960 - 2016 the relationship between real wages growth, net productivity growths and statutory corporate tax rates in the US show that the highest growth occurs under the highest tax rates; see https://www.epi.org/publication/cutting-corporate-taxes-will-not-boost-american-wages/

Feel free to discuss!

But our Federal and State politicians work hard every day and try their hardest to make things better for ordinary Australians, don't they?

Aiden if you actually believe in the greenhouse theory, [A pile of garbage any way] one little fact knocks CO2 out of contention to be causing it. In fact it likely to be a cooling factor.

Researchers found a while back that any increase in CO2 led to a corresponding reduction in water vapour, which has a much wider absorbent spectrum for low frequency radiation. In other words if you believe the greenhouse gas theory, it is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

Thus more CO2 equals less radiation absorption, & a cooler planet.

Researchers quickly dropped this line of research, as it was very detrimental to their grant applications, & their findings disappeared into no mans land.

I don't believe CO2 has any measurable effect on climate, & the puny amount man produces is, if anything, advantageous in helping get our flora off the starvation diet it has been enduring for centuries, but is basically insignificant in the scheme of things.

Hasbeen,
>Researchers found a while back that any increase in CO2 led to a corresponding reduction in water vapour
What research was that?
If you're referring to what I think you are, scientists found that increasing CO2 resulted in decreased water vapour emissions from transpiration. But water vapour entering the atmosphere is not proportional to water vapour in the atmosphere. For while what you say about water vapour being a much powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 is true, you've missed out one crucial detail: water vapour condenses out very quickly! Thus the amount of water vapour going into the atmosphere only has a short term effect on atmospheric water vapour levels. The long term effects determine how much it can hold, and for that CO2 still has an increasing effect.