Bob. You are clearly an intelligent man. Perhaps you can help me with some questions regarding climate change that I am struggling with.

1. How do YOU know that it is warming? A lot of evidence has emerged in recent times showing that much of the 'wsrming' is actually due to unexplained 'adjustments' to the temperature record.

2. How do YOU know that anthropogenic carbon emissions are causing warming, if it is occurring? The science says that a doubling of CO2 (if it were to happen) would lead to around 1 deg C warming. Any warming more than that relies on assumptions of positive feedback which are by no means proven.

3. The IPCC has been thrown into disregard through numerous overstatements and inaccuracies in recent months. The Climategate e:mails affair has revealed that many climate scientists have been engaging in advocacy and cutting corners on the science.

Appreciate your considered responses.

Sorry,Bob,but the ZCA Stationary Energy Plan is not the solution and probably,on the scale it envisages, not even part of the solution.Even on a cursory reading by a sceptic it raises many more questions than it answers. But I am sure that those in the environment movement who are off with the pixies will grasp at the straw it offers.

In other words,it can't be done in the ridiculous time frame proposed and it probably can't be done on the scale proposed in any time frame.It is an extremely expensive option,very likely well beyond the ability of Australia to finance it even if it was feasible

This is not to say that renewables do not have part in a non-polluting electricity generating system but they are not practical to supply base load power.

For that we will have to build nuclear plants close to or on existing coal fired plant sites.The matter is urgent and the feeble,time worn objections of the anti-nuclear crowd will have to be ignored.

For a critique of the ZCA plan go to www.bravenewclimate.com

Far from setting the bar I think the Zero Carbon Australia proposal brings home a reality check. I contains some heroic assumptions about Australians switching en masse to electric cars and giving up gas heaters. It also suggests that our total energy use in all sectors must be cut more than 50% which I think must mean a drop in living standards. The countryside would have even more unsightly power lines. The report assumes some pilot plant solar technology in the US and Spain can be both improved and scaled up thousands of times over. Both the per-plant cost estimates and the required redundancy are on the low side. Rather than gas fired generators to cover shortfalls in wind and solar generation the report assumes straw or wood can be burned as an alternative. I don't see it happening.

Some of these ideas may be feasible if phased in slowly over decades when fossil fuel is more expensive. It is simply not realistic to abandon coal, oil and gas between now and 2020 and embark on a huge spending dollar program with unknown outcomes. The Greens have ruled out one technology that could make substantial cuts in emissions. While expensive it should be a lot cheaper and less uncertain than attempts at 100% renewable power. I say 'attempts' because I don't believe it can be done in this lifetime.

Bob is strong on 'climate change'.. supporting what I consider the graft and corruption of Gore, Strong, Zoi and others... and the vested interest of Bob Carr and other Labor (possibly Liberal too) politicians or ex pollies.....

But Bob's party refused to answer MANY serious and important Questions put to them by the ACL.

"DECLINED TO ANSWER" was a repeated response on any issue regarding morality, exCEPT those which the Greens celebrate, which happen to the those values which most of us do NOT celebrate.

Brown is just using climate change for the same reasons the other high profile Watermelons like Gore, Strong and company are.. for political gain.

But in the end they are still "Red" on the inside, no matter how much green paint you paste on the outside....that's my opinion anyway.

So zero-carbon eh?

But we live in whats called a nitrogen-carbon cycle – google it and you find 351 million references to it.

zero-carbon is in short “unnatural”

Bob seeks to apply his piece of nonsense to anthropogenic carbon sources

But what about the non- anthropogenic warming sources?

Surely we need a greens policy on those inconvenient volcanic eruptions, which occur from time to time?

They are pumping out carbon in the “giggling-litres”

I read somewhere... it might have been here on this site... The effect of one volcanic eruption can eradicate the benefit of 5 years of human reduction strategies.

When brother Bob, the wayward tree-huggers and Trotsky entryist levellers of the greens can come up with a plan to prevent volcanic eruptions, then I will start to consider listening to their dingbat plans

Until then, I would not vote for a greenie in a fit and I would urge everyone else to consider commonsense first, before voting for brother Bob and his abnormal, anti-individualist proposals

The green movement agenda is to deny you your individual rights and choices by tying you up in pointless regulation and hamstringing you to suffer under their emotionally driven misguided will

Climate sceptics were quick to jump onto this article!
First of all, the argument about global warming is over, really.
For one thing, even if the current warming were not due to human activity, it would still be a good idea to make efforts to abate it. Renewable energy is one very obvious move in that direction.

However, the science of global warming and climate change is well accepted now, and the IPCC has not been discredited. This depends on whether or not one wants to believe the world's major scientific bodies, and peer reviewed scientific literature. Oddly enough, everyone seems to accept these criteria, when it comes to medicine or engineering, but not when it comes to climate science.

As for discrediting renewable energy, I have to laugh when I see that nuclear power is offered as a solution to climate change, but in the same comment, the author says that dealing with climate change is an urgent matter. Apart from all the well-known negatives about nuclear power, it is clear that nuclear power plants could not be built in anywhere near enough time and numbers to actually have any effect on global warming.
Meanwhile,nuclear proponents ignore the greenhouse gases emitted by the nuclear fuel cycle in its entirety - starting from uranium mining and milling, and ending with the unsolved problem of what to do with dead radioactive nuclear power plants. Nuclear bomb testing, and nuclear wars are also productive of greenhouse gases and these are an unfortunate consequence of the nuclear industry, however much it preaches "peacefulness".