Sams - "By the way, Crock and dogstarr are both aliases set up purely to disagree with me - see their user profiles which list all of their posts."

Right on, crock. lol. Who does this bloke think he is? I didn't know what astroturfing was either but this clown must be smokin the stuff. So I posted a whole 2 comments to you DregSams. Why? (Here's one of your little hints for you: It's got something to do with you being an idiot)

Thanks for the support Dogstarr .. we astroturfers had better stick together.
I'd like to address Q@A's recent comments.
regardless of what is causing global warming and regardless of whether it will continue, the (almost) undebatable issue is how the huge developing populations of China and India will get the quantity of power (per person) they are seeking to approach the quantity of power we already use but are seeking to reduce. How will the world get the power it needs to lift material living standards ... and also deal with the (predicted) effects of global warming: (eg need for more refrigerated air condiitioning, power to desalinate water, power to run enclosed and scientifically manipulated farms, etc)? This is where baby-boomer environmentalists and their philosophical spawn who are so defensive of the greenhouse effect run into an awkward dilemma, because as even Tim Flannery acknowledges, nuclear probably has to be at least part of the solution. As a Greenhouse doubter who has been been switching off lights and saving power (I even have a solar oven!) for most of my 54 years, I am sceptical of the willingness of the masses to put up with increased climatic discomfort using less power ... even when mindlessly accepting the word of SAMS' priestly caste!

CJ Morgan you are an interloper who has not the courage to enter into direct logical debate nor the intellectual capacity to understand what I'm writing.You are but half right.I had a passion for science at school and at present am argueing from what I'd learnt back in 1969.I have faith in my own logic and not in the likes of Ross Garnaut who have no qualifications in science.
I well may be wrong,but I like others should have the right to question conventional wisdom.

"I have faith in my own logic and not in the likes of Ross Garnaut who have no qualifications in science."

Nor do you have qualifications in science. Garnaut's report is not a scientific study but a policy study, based on the results of scientific studies from trusted sources. Its function is to gauge the impact of climate change on the Australian economy. Garnaut is a professor of economics, and so it is an appropriate scope for him. For scientific studies, refer to the peer-reviewed climate science journals.

There you go again, Sams. Appeal to authority. Don't you think that's exactly what Galileo would have had to put up with?

"Peer review," "appeals to authority" as in "All governments and scientific bodies agree with it, so it must be right" - this is the limit of Sams' ideologically motivated argument.
Peer review is the old boys club agreeing with each other.
The IPCC is a POLITICAL process- not a scientific one.
Even some scientists deeply involved in the IPCC process do not agree with its conclusions or recommendations.
It is a tragedy that science has become so involved with politics, for if it keeps going in this direction, soon no-one will believe what any scientist has to say.