There are two levels of criticism of the "report"

The first questions the science which is foolish, because while the magnitude and effects of future climate change has still some unknowns, there is clear evidence that it is happenning.

The second questions the recommendations. I firmly believe that the recommendations if implemented without the buy in of the major polluters (china and india) will lead Australia into a major recession whilst having almost no effect whatsoever on climate change.

I am a firm believer in the Pareto priciple or that 80% of the gains can be achieved with 20% of the effort.

As electricity generation accounts for about 70% of CO2 generation in Aus, and brown coal generates nearly twice as much per kWhr than black coal, replacing this with gas cogen would reduce C02 emissions by 25% in one stroke and cost a heap less than wind or solar.

Replacing all the brown coal with nuclear in Victoria would reach the 30% reduction by 2030, reuse the transmission infrastructure and maintain employment in the letrobe valley, but that is completely unpalatable to the Left.

I am wildly over simplifying the issue and expect to be roundly criticised for my generalisations, but have sound science behind my proposals.

Kenny, if you cannot read advocacy into this Jones boy's article then don't assume my comment has anything to do with politics .... left, right, or left right out. This is nonsense stuff and you need to know it because it is the politicisation of science that i've been for ever concerned with as the main issue. I simply want good honest science getting the available tax payer funding not some bogus alarmism rorting the system and destroying the careers of especially young promising people entering the profession. We need to focus on hard science projects.

Jones here and now Sams with his link to springerlink's collection are evidence of an Al-AGW pseudo-scientific establishment floating on a rising tide of fear and propaganda. Four Corners on the ABC last night provided ample evidence of how their standards have slipped alarmingly because in effect this program should have been preceded by a disclaimer that it is propaganda, not a documentary nor an example of investigative journalism. This propaganda creates through intellectual dishonesty the absurd belief that climate is not allowed to modulate changes.

Remember these Al-AGW advocates are pushing their agenda through emotion, ridicule, propaganda and rhetoric. They have NO scientific proof which certainly explains their refusal to debate the issue.

JF Aus: "We are told the ocean level will rise 1 metre, correct? Where will all the water come from to cover 72% of this planet's ocean surface?"

I see these sorts of questions posted here again and again, and I can't resist speculating why. If you are genuinely interested in the answer this is the wrong place to seek it. JF Aus, you must know this, surely. You are not likely to take any answer given here at face value anyway. If you are genuine, here is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

As a starting point it's so, well, obvious. It must be faster than typing up question, posting it here and waiting for the answer.

It seems more likely JF Aus is just stirring the pot. But if you are going to do that why start with a question that is so dammed easy to answer? Any kid seeing the someone suggest the sea level won't rise with an increase in temperature could tell you within 60 seconds it's just idiocy. Being able to instantly fact check using the internet almost a basic skill nowadays - right up there with counting money. Maybe not for some of the posters here, but kids learn it in high school. And so it should be. I just wish some of the adults would catch on.

To all those who have voiced their scepticism:

No one is denying that critical thikning is an essential part of rigorous science and a flourishing democracy. However, by your own logic it is misguided to think of climate change as a purely scientific question. Because as some of you rightly point out, scientific theories can never be proved, only disproved. And the issue of climate change is not a question of proving whether it's happening or not. It's about assessing the risks and deciding on an appropriate course of action.

The time for scientific debate has passed: what we need to decide now is whether we are willing to risk a minimal effect on our hip pockets to avoid the risk of the collapse of the Earth's ecosystems. I'm afraid it is a moral question.

Runner: "It was not long ago that the man made hole in the ozone layer was going to kill us or [sic]. "

What is it about ozone depletion you don't understand? The ozone layer was measurably thinner, and UV levels noticeably higher. As a skin cancer sufferer, there was an obvious result of higher UV levels on my person. Since the discovery of thinning ozone, efforts (in particular the Montreal Protocol of 1987) have been made to reduce or eliminate the gasses causing the thinning, and this has worked, with the ozone layer, while still thinned, is recovering. Even if you regard anthropogenic global warming as a fairy story, ozone depletion is something else again. Or are you one of the many punters who confuse the two?

There is at least one error of fact in Jones' article. Temperatures are taken at 1.1 metre above the ground, not 1.5. The bulbs of the thermometers at 1.1 metre would put the scale at about 1.2m, high enough for many weather observers. If the scale was at 1.6m (bulbs at 1.5m) most observers would need to stand on a box or ladder.

I might add that the accurate instrumental record is very short, with sparse records from mid-19th century and more widespread ones from early 20th century. The methods used confuse the issue, with the now-standard Stevenson screen only coming into widespread use early in the 20th century. I also wonder how the "normal" line on the graphs bandied about are established. If it's a 30 year instrumental record, say 1960-90, who's to say that that period is "normal"?

"Bob Carter has photographic proof showing lots of official US Govt temp recording stations being re-located near air conditioning units,on bitumen,near buildings etc.The general urban heat island effect also has an impact as cities grow.Could this be distorting their data?"

If this is the case, and I doubt it, there are statistical means by which the resulting data would be thrown out. In any case, there are "baseline" stations on remote islands which have no urban effects, which are used rather than urban stations which have a compromised record. The mere act of moving an observation area 200 metres is enough to compromise the record (and when it happens, a comparison is made between the two sites, usually over two years).

Exterminator, some of your alarmist "global warming effects" are laughable. It doesn't take global warming to wipe out species, when man is around. Just ask the Australian megafauna, or the NZ moa. As for the Murray/Darling, while its present status is not good, much of the demise of the system can be sheeted home to irrigators and the Snowy Mts Scheme for massively reducing flows.