There is no contradiction whatsoever in my logic.Currently so called green energy alternatives do not supply base load power.Hydrogen can be free energy from your tap.The oil gas and coal are not going to last forever.If I can reduce my fuel bill by 25% and reduce real pollutants like sulphur that is both an economic positive as well as being good for the environment.The internal combustion enegine is very inefficient and hydrogen from water has not been developed enough because the big players see their power base being eroded.They claim just 3 litres of hydrogen per minute boosts your octane rating to 140 thus burning the fuel more completely.I think that we could easily use hydrogen as a 50% supplement to carbon based fuels.If they can harness the heat energy from your car to produce more electricity to produce hydrogen,then we can cut fuel costs dramatically.The carbon based fuels will not last forever.

Saul Eastlake and Malcolm Turnbull are Goldman Sachs devotees.Wall St want the ETS as another derivative that they can rort again.Saul tries to use adhominem against me and will not debate me on the banking system which expresses our increases in productivity as debt.He won't debate becasuse he knows he won't win.

The facts are that carbon is not the problem and the science has been perverted by a lot of greedy people.

How we know what Co2 does.

It's repeatable, demonstrable, verifiable, provable spectrometry that can be done in any decent lab on the planet. Which might just be why every decent National Science Academy on the planet has signed on to support AGW!

As a more technical friend explained it to me:
———
The simple answer is we know the absorption spectra of CO2 because we can measure it directly, unambiguously and very accurately.

The measurement is conceptually very simple – shine a light source of a given wavelength through a sample of CO2 gas in a glass box, and measure the decrease in intensity of the light that passes through. The difference between what goes in and what comes out is the absorption, at that particular wavelength. If you measure the absorption for a range of wavelengths – say from infrared through to ultraviolet, thats the absorption spectrum. If you know the dimensions of the box, and the density of the gas, you can then calculate the absorption per molecule, or mole, or whatever. You can then use that to calculate the absorption through any amount of CO2, say, that in the atmosphere above us.

Look up Beer’s Law on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law

In the old days we would have used a single wavelength spectrometer, which would split light through a prism and slit arrangement to select a single wavelength. A more modern instrument is the FTIR – Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy – which illuminates with all wavelengths at once and uses fourier analysis to back out the spectrum. But the spectrum of CO2 is a bit like the boiling point of water. It was established a very long time ago, and if you need it, you look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_infrared_spectroscopy

Guess what Eclipse, the earth is not in a glass box, or wasn't the last time I looked, & neither am I.

You may, although from your posts I'm inclined to think it is an ivory tower.

No one with half a brain pays any attention to anything in Wikipedia regarding global warming, at least no one who knows what was going on there.

You'll have to do better.

Arjay, you're corrrect in saying that carbon is not the problem, it's acually a very valuable commodity indeed. However, when it's locked up between 2 oxygen atoms, it becomes a costly commodity to recover for useful purposes, which is why it hasn't been done as much as it might have been.

However, there are lots of things that could be done if there was lots of cheap energy as well, including making useful carbon-based fuels for transport needs. Eclipse's ideas on nuclear might be worth a good look. Certainly China thinks so and so do many other nations that don't have coal as freely available as we do. Our coal is far to useful for other things to be burnt as fuel and the carbon given to the atmosphere. Make the producers actually get rid of it instead of giving them an overlay to fudge the figures with

Hasbeen tries to write off the laws of physics that are currently allowing this conversation to continue over the fiber optic internet. Interesting. The laws of nature only work 'in a box'! How fascinating.

We *know* that Co2 traps energy. We know how much energy it can trap. From here on it's a matter of counting:-
* how much Co2 is in the atmosphere (easy),
* how many other forcings are at play (more complicated — eg: the very FEW climate papers in the 70's that warned of a cooling trend did so because of global dimming which was a significant cooling forcing. We could even use global dimming in a real emergency!)
* where this extra energy will go (which seems to me to be the area of biggest debate in climatology such as following heat shooting away from the Tropical Hot Spot through to understanding how climate interacts with short term climate systems like El Nino and La Nina).

But the climatologists are aware of all these debates, and for Arjay to cite Dr David Evans against the body of peer-reviewed papers all discussing EXACTLY the problems Evans raises just shows an intentional misdirection. If Arjay is a regular here, he has no doubt been directed to the relevant papers addressing EVERY one of Dr David Evan's concerns. They are in the top 100 of the 160 common Denialist myths pushed around the Denialosphere. I almost see these myths as old friends, maybe a bit like a footy coach recognising the various songs from competing teams. It doesn't mean I take them seriously — even though the climatologists are. I'm just aware that they are being discussed in the peer-review system.

And I wake up another day to find out that yes, the entire world's scientific body of peer-reviewed science STILL accepts the basic premises of AGW, and there is STILL not one National Science Academy that has failed the hypothesis because of the THS, urban heat islands, or even Lord Monckton selling a cure for HIV AIDS and MS. ;-)

Eclipse Now,They should not be calling it a carbon tax.The argument is about the degree of warming caused by CO2.The reality is staring us in the face.The World has not warmed since 1998 even with huge increases in CO2.The argument is shot to pieces.Ice core data shows that there is a 800 yr lag in CO2 increases after temperature has gone up and this CO2 get released from the oceans.Water vapour is a far greater warming gas than CO2 but this system as Dr Evans says is self regulating.When there is too much water vapour it rains and the system goes back into equlibrium.