I'm not going to attempt to debate the correctness of the science that underpins the global warming theory (unlike some other people here), because I haven't read the studies cited, and I don't presume to be an expert.

However, I would like to pose a question. If global warming is real, so what? Are we not able to adapt to rising sea levels, changes in vegetation patterns, weather patterns, etc? If anything, it would be an economic boom. Whole new cities and industries would need to be built. This would create new work and therefore new jobs. Much of our infrastructure needs renewing anyway, so why not start building somewhere new? It is Keynesian economics in action :)

Yes, Gekko, why not be realistic in Australia, the world's largest island and with a desert in the centre where the sun is at it's peak most every day.

If a small magnifer can burn a hole in your arm in seconds what heat plus power might a magnifer the size of a footy ground collect propped up as high as the Eiffel tower and swivelled to follow the sun?

Not one but ten dozen of these?

It is also said that if rivers were kept from running into Lake Eyre, the lake with its glary white salt covering would also make the biggest and best solar collector in the world.

Furthermore if those northern rivers could be turned into a tube canal into the northern end of the Darling how much might this help water and productive problems in the south?

From Graham Y,
1. Peiser admitted one inaccurate interpretation of a paper but Lambert implied that Peiser admitted to widespread errors. Gore said "not one paper" but Lambert gave Bolt a zero for getting 33/34 right. Bolt 1, Lambert nil, Gore nil.

2. Bolt left out a date but Gore left out Revelle's highly relevant conclusion. Bolt 2, Lambert nil, Gore Nil.

3. Bolt gave an accurate quote, not disputed by Lambert and added to the partial information provided by Gore but Lambert used a straw man. Bolt 3, Lambert nil, Gore nil.

4. Gore claimed warming was only cause of glacier melt. Bolt mentioned land use change. Lambert links to real climate bumf that used the levels of Lake Victoria as a proxy for past rainfall. Really silly when most know that clearing trees increases runoff and will therefore raise the level of the lake. Bolt 4, Lambert nil, Gore nil.

5. Gore claimed 600cm sea level rise by 2100. Bolt said IPCC projected 14 to 43cm by 2100. Lambert claimed B was in error because the real IPCC projection was 11 to 77cm and then used realclimate claim of "eventual" rise of 400 to 600cm. Lambert made no mention of when this "eventual" rise will occur because, at current melting rates it will take 11,000 YEARS! Bolt 5, Lambert nil, Gore nil.

More to follow.

6.Gore claims there are already sea level refugees in the Pacific. Bolt quoted De Freitas' complete rejection. Lambert quotes a radio station beat up but ignores Islands like Niue that have 75% of their population now in NZ when their "lower terrace" is 27 metres above sea level. Ditto for other islands Bolt 6. Lambert nil, Gore nil.

7. Bolt provides legitimate perspective on the issue and can be neither right nor wrong. Bolt 7, Lambert nil, Gore 0.5.

8. Gore claims cyclones intensifying all over the world due to GW. Bolt quotes Dr Landsea of US Nat Hurricane Centre who says no evidence. Lambert quotes more realclimate bumf, with no evidence, that "most experts disagree". Lambert obviously has no idea of Qld experience over past 30 years with substantially fewer and milder cyclones. Bolt 8, Lambert nil, Gore 0.5.

9. Gore claims 30 new diseases due to GW. Bolt quoted expert that said Gore completely wrong. Lambert quotes a reference to a particular mosquito species and tried to imply that this refuted the experts "not one of the 30 diseases" claim. Lambert then quotes a study that merely stated that, among many other factors, GW could not be ruled out, as if that was proof of cause. Bolt 9, Lambert nil, Gore 0.5.

10. Bolt said Gore never hints at other explanations and gives solar activity as one of those explanations. Lambert attacks the example and claims that Bolt is wrong for giving any example at all. Bolt 10, Lambert nil, Gore 0.5.

Lambert has completely trashed his credibility with this defamatory diatribe masquerading as balanced assessment. It is pure casuistry.

Pers and Graham,

But the general impression that most readers will take away from the piece is that: Andrew Bolt is a dill and Tim Lambert knowledgable.

Why? Because the piece has been judge one of the best blogs of 2006 by presumably knowledgable folk (including an Australian academic) and OLO published it.

Hey, one slap in the face for Bolted Colt of no regrets, so what?
He trades in invective, bitchy, often deliberately cruel, hair splitting journalism, reap what you sow!