Jaanama wrote: "Please read the following article titled 'Recent Cooling and the Serious Data Integrity Issue' " ... "address the science".

Please spare us the ramblings of a ex weather reporter who publishes for the DCI Group (a Republican public affairs consulting and lobbying firm).

Address the science? By all means: show me his articles in peer-reviewed climate journals, or indeed the articles of any climate scientist in such a journal that supports him. If you keep avoiding answering this challenge, what should we conclude?

Either leave the scientific analysis to climate scientists, or become one yourself and publish in an appropriate journal. That is how you "address the science", not by throwing up a smoke screen of pretty graphics and bland assertions and expecting non-scientific people to believe its all nice and scientific. I think I'd rather believe the thousands of climate scientists behind the IPCC effort, and NASA, whose technological feats are probably a little more than that of Mr. Cable TV Weather.

RawMustard: "I dunno but I think this whole MMGW crock is just that, a huge crockabaloney designed to swindle more money from the unsuspecting public." + link to APS

Please, do your research properly: that opinion piece by Monckton (who is not a scientist but a journalist) lead to a statement on the APS home page:

"Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum. This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."

See http://www.aps.org/ under "The APS Position Remains Unchanged"

The American Physical Society fully supports human-caused climate change: "The evidence is incontrovertible"

See http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

You can find more about Monckton here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2828

and here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/viscount-monckton-at-ease-lying-for-money

Ha ha good on you Sams - true to form.

OK here are 3 peer reviewed articles relating to temperature measurements that were ignored by the IPCC.

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/15/recent-ignored-scientific-findings-an-illustration-of-a-broken-scientific-method/

to quote the site: "These are just three examples of the level to which the scientific method has sunk to in climate science."

"In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14°C per decade; still a warming, but not as large as indicated "

Before you attack Dr Roger Pielke Sr. here is wiki's page on his credentials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke

Yes - it does suggest that he supports CO2 and global warming but the article they quote he contributed to in 2002, things have altered considerably since then.

for readers unfamiliar with Joseph D’Aleo of ICECAP here are his credentials.

Joseph D’Aleo is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin BS, MS and was in the doctoral program at NYU.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts

He is supported at ICECAP by the scientists listed on the same page.

Icecaps's funding comes from here:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us

Sams, you keep pointing me to springerlink.com knowing full well I am not about to outlay $32 for every article I wish to read.

Why has this thread been hijacked by the anti-greenhouse gas effect brigade?

Regardless of whether one believes CO2 emissions matter or not, it should still be possible to discuss whether the Government's approach will reduce said emissions. Discussion of whether there is an anthropogenic climate change in progress belong in a different thread.

Sylvia Else: << Why has this thread been hijacked by the anti-greenhouse gas effect brigade? >>

Short answer: because it's on OLO, which has latterly joined such cerebral blogs as those hosted by Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt, Jennifer Marohasy et al as the last bastions of climate change denialism.

Sylvia Else: << Why has this thread been hijacked by the anti-greenhouse gas effect brigade? >

Because the true believers are gullible! The other believers are naive or deceitful and more and more are waking up to the fraudulent science being used to scare people.

It seems to me that those who keep raising the information that
Australians are one of the world's worse CO2 polluters and the
developing countries per capita CO2 is so low that they should not
have the same rules as the developed countries have missed the point.

If AGW is true it doesn't really matter which country generates the CO2.
The co2 rules are being applied country by country. If those that
produce the most don't engage then what is the point of the rest of us
going broke trying to do the job for them ?

It can be argued that those with the largest populations should do the
most as it it those countries that are generating the most co2.
They should have thought of that when they let their populations get out of control.