Nice try John but you are wrong on many accounts. There is a good correlation also between rising CO2 levels and the rebound warming that occurred since the Little Ice Age over the same time span. Given that anthropogenic CO2 accounts for a mere 4% of the annual atmosphere-ocean interchange then most of this warming is natural. The IPCC models assume that additional, ie anthropogenic CO2 stays in the atmosphere for up to 200 years as the natural ocean-atmosphere CO2 transfer is said to be in equilibrium. This is wrong - 90% of the peer-reviewed literature says that all CO2 (natural and anthropogenic) has an atmosphere residence time of 3 to 12 years (average 5). Additional CO2 from natural and anthropogenic sources has to be absorbed by the oceans according to Henry's Law Constant that maintains an ocean-atmosphere equilibrium of 50:1. Anthropogenic CO2 is still subject to physical laws.

The Vostok and other ice cores do not measure all the trapped CO2 in the ice bubbles; about 20% remains trapped in the ice itself during the 2-4,000 years that it takes for the ice to completely close itself to the prevailing atmosphere. The ice core sample intervals are 1-2,000 years; there is less than a 5% chance that the CO2 increase that has been recorded over the past 50 to 100 years, the vast majority of which is natural, would even appear in the ice core record - qualitatively, this is described as very unlikely.

The Mauna Loa observatory that has continuously measured atmospheric CO2 for over 50 years (and shown the steep rise in CO2 levels) has been so reworked with averages and smoothing trends that the figures are unreliable. Up to 600ppm CO2 have been recorded on a daily basis - not surprising, as Mauna Loa is located on a volcano and situated just hundreds of kilometres downwind from the largest known oceanic outgassing source of CO2 located in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. (Continued)

The Mauna Loa figures, and elsewhere, are also subjected to internal adjustments, called flux adjustments (or unkindly, fudge factors) in order to accord with one another, ie the figures are not accurate representations of what they seek to measure and are adjusted to match one another. This is because CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere and changes over space and time; the models require well-mixed CO2 and a long residence time – both are inaccurate assumptions. Nonetheless, these are the figures that go into the climate models that create the scary SRES scenarios upon which you, presumably, base your opinions. There is heaps more I could add.

You talk about science John but you do not practise it. We do need to broaden our energy mix though but not through the introduction of an ETS. An ETS will not only increase the price of oil and energy, that will flow on to every other aspect of life: food; housing, transport, etc. Of course, we can cap and trade – that should keep the third world populations impoverished as they sell off their carbon credits to buy extremely expensive energy for heating and cooking, as well as food. Who will measure and control all this John, as carbon credits become the new international currency and every step along the way has to be regulated and accounted for from issuance to retirement. That will involve a large bureaucracy of petty officials, further adding to the costs of production or service, involving the government in every business. Wait until carbon credits apply to households John, then everyone will be subjected to carbon surveillance and the minute of their everyday purchases will measured and recorded. The carbon laws for households have already been designed in Britain with a 2018-20-start date. But most of all think about this. As a researcher the best reduction figure of CO2 I can find for a globally applied ETS is the vague 'several'. That should reduce it from 387ppm to around 382ppm. John, what difference will that make?

Science is based on facts and hypotheses, so here are two facts and two hypotheses:

Fact 1: Measured atmospheric CO2 levels have risen steadily since 1998.

Fact 2: Global average temperatures have not risen since 1998.

Hypothesis 1: Global average temperatures are not linked to CO2 levels.

Hypothesis 2: Global average temperatures ARE linked to CO2 levels, but something has happened in the last eleven years to disrupt this linkage.

If you think Hypothesis 2 is a better explanation of the facts than Hypothesis 1 then answer this: what has disrupted the linkage since 1998? When you can explain how and why this 'Factor X' has interfered with AGW since 1998 then you will be in a position to predict what will happen in fifty years. Till then you don't have a leg to stand on.

There are lots of good reasons to reduce our reliance on energy imports, but unilateral carbon taxes will simply cripple our economy, and pass the initiative to other nations that are less credulous and have a better understanding of what 'science' really means.

John - others have dealt with the science, I will weigh in with a few comments on the precautionary principle. Even if we accept that rising CO2 will change climate, and we are able to calculate damage from that change the economic case just does not add up. The only economist - literally the only one - who disagrees is Nicholas Stern. He has a nobel prize but then so do several of those who disagree. Stern's mistake was to set an unrealistically low return when calculating the time value of money.
If we agree that chnage is happening then the money is far better spent on adaption, not in futile attempts to cut emissions.

Appealing to science in the AGW debate is most definitely delusional,on several counts.

1.Even if is absolutely true and even under the worst scenarios of emmission cut backs, the effect we will have on a reduction in global temperature is miniscule--not even measurable over 100years.

2. The canard that the greenoids and their camp followers, Govt funded climate scientists peddle, of Australia having the highest per capita output of co2, over looks the fact that we occupy about 7m square kilometres of land, and about the same of territorial waters.

3. If the per capita absorption is divided by the area occupied we are one of the least demanding.

4.If the area we occupy is taken into account we have no effect, and the Europeans have the worst,with Denmark and the Netherlands being outrageous in the demands they place on others, and the environment.Why does that not surprise me.

Given this and the fact that we would have no measurable effect on the temperature, it takes a particular form of irresponsibility of Governments, at the official and the political levels, to impose an ETS on this economy.

Can it possibly be any dumber than that

Reliance on the AGW science to force us to transition to more expensive sources will be ruinous to our economies.

First, is the direct effects on the cost of living.

Second, is the likelihood of domestic production, thus jobs, going overseas.

Third, is that as demand for fossil fuel goes down, the countries who compete with us and who continue to rely on cheap fossil fuel energy sources will benefit two ways. They will find fossil fuels cost less due to diminished worldwide demand. They will also find that their cost to manufacture goods for the world market has dramatically decreased, effectively expanding their market domination over all of us.