Without getting into a line-by-line rebuttal of the article in The Australian, there is another article published in Nature which discusses the summary released by the IPCC. This article is available here to read:
Climate panel says prepare for weird weather : Nature News & Comment and it also makes available the actual summary for those who are interested in going to the source data from which The Australian has taken its quotes. For background, Nature is one of the worlds most respected general scientific journals and has been published since 1869 (before Teresa Green even picked up a fishing rod
). The statements made in The Australian bear little resemblance to either the summary or the analysis by Nature. It looks like The Australian has cherry-picked those particular areas of weather/climatic effects that have been identified as having weak or moderate strength conclusions, while ignoring those that are identified as strong or near-certain conclusions.
Nature begins with "Extreme weather, such as the 2010 Russian heat wave or the drought in the horn of Africa, will become more frequent and severe as the planet warms, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns in a report released today. Some areas could become “increasingly marginal as places to live in", the report concludes."
This is completely and utterly different to The Australian's headline of "Review fails to support climate change link". The remainder of the article continues in a similar fashion, and ultimately finishes with almost a footnote of "The draft IPPC summary said if the century progressed without restraints on greenhouse gas emissions, their impacts would come to dominate. It said it was "very likely" that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heatwaves, would continue to increase over most land areas.". This is at odds even with their own headline which suggests that the IPCC review fails to support the overall idea of climate change.
To continue with the smoking analogy, The Australian has effectively created an article that states "Smoking - no link to negative health effects. Here is our analysis of the Surgeon Generals report: Eardrums - no negative effects observed. Toenails - continue in robust good health. Knee joints and cartilage - no reported ill effects. Other health concerns are still being monitored". While individual parts are technically true it gives a misleading view of the overall picture and ignores or minimises those elements that disagree with the point that the author is attempting to make.
The Nature article finishes with a quote from the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri "Despite all uncertainties, it is crucial for policy-makers to remain aware of the scientific reality of climate change, If science is not given the primacy it deserves it is unlikely that any of the actions will be taken that this report is begging of.”. This is entirely different to the politicised spin that The Australian has put on their interpretation of the report.