Where do you get your numbers from? I'm curious, since they seem to be at least an order of magnitude off from sources that come up in naive searches. (E.g. the 9-26% figure cited in Wikipedia for the percent of greenhouse effect due to CO2, including water vapour.)
I'm not making any economic recommendations; I'm just someone who doesn't know very much, who is trying to find, say as an impartial Martian might, what the best interpretation of facts are given the available data.
As I write today, I'm referencing the following sites that a quick Google search turned up. I'm frustrated that I can't find another one I like, but this one is very good.
For one thing, the wiki article (which, again, is quoting realclimate.org, so is already tainted) is giving you a number of how much total contribution CO2 has on earth's greenhouse effect. It's not telling you how much effect _man-made_ CO2 is having, which is obviously less, as even they would admit that CO2 is not purely made my humans.
In particular, they give figures of 75 W/m2 for water vapor and 32 W/m2 for CO2. The link to the original paper where those figures came from is broken but here's a fixed one:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/at...
Look at Figure 3, they also go into some depth about the assumptions and observations behind those figures.
That's very good. You can't have your cake and eat it too, as they try to do. Here, they admit it's by far, the dominant greenhouse driver, and yet, in the next breath, they jump back on the CO2 bandwagon.
What about their figures do you disagree with? It's fairly open and fundamental science, I'd be very interested in a half-decent paper knocking holes in it.
I'm not making any economic recommendations; I'm just someone who doesn't know very much, who is trying to find, say as an impartial Martian might, what the best interpretation of facts are given the available data.