Christine;
Before you go plunging off and cost us all enormous amounts
of money can you resolve this question;

The effect of CO2 is not linear.
It is logarithmic.
That being so, where are we on the curve ?
Is the part of the curve at 400 ppm almost straight or has it already
rolled over to the point where increased CO2 makes no difference ?

This point is so important that you need to know this before you
suggest any any further action. You may save us $billions and become the
next PM as the present crop would look very silly.

Bazz,

Before you go plunging off and cost us all enormous amounts
of money, can you try and understand the science?

You current level of understanding is telling, you are just plain wrong.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7043#107778

You can obfuscate all you want, but just because you don’t want to believe the science or can not understand it … does not make it not so.

You appear to have difficulty with the science and clearly acknowledge it is complex. To simplify these complexities so that you can understand distorts the science itself and then you use these distortions for your own misguided beliefs.

You would do so much better if you contributed to the debate that is now predominating … ergo, move on.

A bit of fun for Q&A (... forget that wiki nonsense).

Question ...... Look at this piccie ... is this a La Nina?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.3.2008.gif

&

Answer ...... (hint .... Include reference to Indian Ocean)

Surely if Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history we are not looking at simply a localised La Nina.

"Well maybe he has a job, because he is riding the CO2 bandwagon.
Lets get real here, 1000 lives is neither here nor there, in
the bigger scheme of things. (Yabby)

All eminent major health institutes around the world are warning of the diabolical increase in human mortality and disease world-wide from air pollution (mainly fossil fuel and pesticide emissions.) The Yabby continues to distract the reader from the environmental and human health costs occurring in Australia from industrial pollution - that's CO2 by any other name.

"Pollution Causes 40 Percent Of Deaths Worldwide, Study Finds ScienceDaily (Aug. 14, 2007) — About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, concludes a Cornell researcher.

"Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes behind the rapid increase in human diseases, which the World Health Organization has recently reported. Both factors contribute to the malnourishment and disease susceptibility of 3.7 billion people, he says.

"The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 3 million people die each year as a result of exposure to air pollution. That number is approximately 5 percent of all deaths every year. In its recent report on environmental health hazards WHO noted that the death toll may actually be as high as 6 million people a year."

And let's not exclude Australia from those equations. In my state alone, many communities (right now) are officially objecting to industrial pollution. These include Kwinana, Kalgoorlie, Esperance, Wagerup, the Kimberleys. Pollutant industries operate in Australia without any national or state regulations for carbon emissions.

The federal governments health profile in 2005 found that the heavily industrialised Kwinana/Rockingham community (ages 0 - 74) had a notably higher mortality rate than Perth and was above the rate for Australia. Major causes for premature mortality were cancers and diseases of the circulatory system.

As is usual with pollutant industry aligned governments, the committee blamed the high mortality on "socio-economic" circumstances:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM7QA30JEik&mode=related&search=

No-one seriously believes that governments (which feast from the same poisoned tree as the rogue polluters,) will heed Garnaut's interim recommendations, do they?