I am getting seriously tired of articles like this. The IPCC summary is quite specific about its reasons for its ominous conclusions. It is a very conservative document, understating at every turn rather than the opposite.

It also lays to rest several of the climate myths such as those peddled by our writer, with simple scientific information conveniently left out of the greenhouse sceptics' diatribes. Read it for yourself -- it's only 21 pages and easily findable via Google.

For a more readable gathering of the facts, see Time Magazine April 2006, also available on the web. The whole issue is devoted to the subject and comes to similar conclusions as the IPCC. Note, the magazine employs fact checkers.

As for the statement that climate change policies are siphoning the public pocket, I can only shake my head in wonder.

Start calculating how much public money is being spent on the Iraq war ALONE, and who is profiting. (Tip: it's not the renewable energy industry.) Consider that Exxon last year made the biggest corporate profit EVER. Our correspondent is seriously missing the big picture.

Read the Guardian article revealing that fossil fuel industries are offering scientists $10,000 for every article published that questions the IPCC report.

After this country has systematically defunded research into renewables, The NSW Government proposes an 'innovations fund' in its State Plan. Guess which industry is singled out for largesse? The coal industry of course.

The feds subsidise the Eden Woodchip Mill six-figure sums for every giant tree-muncher they buy, putting workers out of a job in the process.

No, corporate welfare exceeds anything spent on fixing climate change many. many times over.

Boring.

The blurb at the end says Paul Williams has veterinarian and a paramedic. Does he only respond to problems visible to the naked eye?

Do viruses exist?

We cannot take it at face value that climate change can be solely attributed to co2 emmissions.All the fossils fuels we burn today are a result of plants removing co2 from the atmosphere millions of years ago.In other words our ancient atmosphere had a lot more co2 and still life thrived.

There are so many variables such as pollution and thus heating of the oceans,sun spot activity,removal of forests,destruction of the ozone layer,change in the earths orbit,all play their part.

This does not mean we should not act,but we may be being too alarmist in our predictions and singling out fossil fuels as being the major culprit.

Particulate matter in our oceans makes them absorb much more energy.Our oceans which cover 66% of our planet have the biggest effect on weather.

There are a lot of scientists who are not convinced.I think we need to do more homework on the causes rather than going off half cocked.Remember the millenium bug that was going to destroy the world economy?This was sold to us as scientific fact.It was alarmist claptrap!

If the scientists get it wrong this time on CO2,no one will believe them in the future when real changes to planet occur threatening our survival.

Here in Europe this winter there was less snow 'than usual' on the Alps etc., ski resorts had less business etc. All the common media - 'Global Warming! - It's not snowing anymore!'

However last year, the rivers were frozen over in this area - quite a rare occurance - there were heavy snowfalls - 'more than usual' - and the favourite topic of conversation: 'Gee what a long, unusually cold hard winter this is'.

One year later - 'Global Warming!'.

'Climate change is real' = the greatest truism ever uttered.

Yes the climate changes. Now let's get on with our lives.

I noticed that the IPCC has finally accepted that Antarctica will not melt and temperatures will remain much the same down there. But how can this be a global warming if our pole is not going to melt? And how can this 'warming' be caused by CO2 when the levels are essentially the same at both poles? Yes, Arctic has CO2 at 371ppm and the Antarctic has 369ppm. So surely, if CO2 is the cause of warming then it should be equally apparent at both poles?

But it is not equal at both poles and 'global warming' is, in reality, northern hemisphere warming. So how come the EEC, who never opened their markets to fair, global, competition, now want to 'share' their self inflicted climate problems with the rest of us.

I get the impression most people over here are reacting the same way as in Oz - every time there's a warm day GW becomes the topic de jour.

As I stated above, last winter was exceptionally long and cold in Europe (at least in Germany), with lots of snow and frozen lakes and rivers. No-one spoke about GW then. And besides, I think most Germans would be quite thrilled if they didn't have to scrape the snow and ice off their windshields in the morning anymore. Or dealing with ice on their Autobahns.. if it was suddenly announced "Germany will be an average of 5 degrees hotter every year from now on" there would be celebrations in the streets..

I'm sure the Russians and other Eastern Europeans wouldn't complain too much either.. the current temperature in Agata, Russia is -40 degrees C, and according to the weather forecast will get down to -47 degrees C on Saturday. Nope, don't think they'd mind a bit of global warming at all..

I'd say a far more pressing issue over the next 50 years will be where everyone will get their food and energy from.