Averaged over 20 years, methane is rated as 72 times more potent per tonne, than carbon dioxide in causing global warming. Australia's methane emissions come primarily from 28 million cattle and 88 million sheep. The livestock emissions, on their own, will cause significantly more warming in the next 20 years than all our coal-fired power stations. Is it time to stop breeding sheep and cattle in Australia if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because methane is such a massive contributor to climate change?

Whoever said that “most proponents of human-induced global warming are either ignorant of science or have too much personally invested. They rely on authority, consensus and a maniacal desperation to stamp out contrary views.” could not have made a more accurate observation of the substance of the IPCC and all its hangers-on and fans.

Col Rouge, has anyone, to your knowledge, explained just how the government will "divy" up the CPRS Tax income? It seems to be going into general revenue, less the the normal "deductions" that must be taken by "yes minister".
If, as we are told, this could be some $11Bn in income per year, how much will go to say, the new bureacracy to hunt income, the feet on the ground that will do the compliance, the techno-boffins to measure the carbon on the farms and emissions from "emitters" and the contributions Australia is about to sign up for to fund the UN ex-gracia payments to "poor nations"? How much of this revenue will actually be left to reduce carbon emissions?

*The livestock emissions, on their own, will cause significantly more warming in the next 20 years than all our coal-fired power stations.*

Not so Native, for as has been pointed out, herbivores simply
recycle CO2, they don't dig it out of the ground, as humans do.

If you want less methane, then shut down all the new CSG developments
being undertaken immediately, for all they are doing is drilling
coal seams to release methane, for your benefit.

I remind you, that when a cow craps out the back, she fertilises
grass, which thus grows faster, absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere.
Grass grows roots, which sequesters carbon back into
the earth. You only need to increase soil carbon content by
1% and you have largely solved the CO2 question.

In fact plants grow faster with more CO2, that is why in some
greenhouses, they actually pump the stuff in there.

Candide, if you ignore the IPCC and instead Google the NIPCC at http://www.nipccreport.org/ you will perhaps get a greater grasp of the truth. Dismissing something because it is funded by an interest group is counter productive if you consider that Governments around the world are an interest group. Interested in taxing your hip pocket or purse.
The amount of human made CO2 is insufficient to drive the climate. It is more likely that the climate change is related to the sun. Read Rhodes Fairbridge at http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
CO2 is an essential life support gas that is a natural plant food.
As the population of the world increases there will be a greater demand for food. Were it possible to reduce CO2 levels by human intervention, we would risk posterity's food supply.
The CPRS tax is a get rich tax for Al Gore, Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull et.al. Check out The Green Chip Review to see how to make 32% profit PER MONTH. http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/17514

phoenix94: "I ask someone to tell me where to find the science that proves that CO2 is a pollutant."

Why? I don't recall anybody claiming it is a pollutant in the sense that you imply. Say like lead in the atmosphere is, for example. This is just your classic straw man argument, which is why everybody ignores it.

phoenix94: "Read Rhodes Fairbridge at http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf"

This gentleman and lots of others have put their scientific 2c worth in. So far stuff all of their peers agree with them. I am not really in any position to say, so I will go with the majority. This is a pretty easy thing to do because the majority in this case is overwhelmingly large.

As for the solar forcings theory - I gather the prediction is we have hit some sort of a peak and temperatures should start declining soon. If they don't within 2 decades we can discard it completely.