Starbust, yes I do, but to be fair to BOM it was published a few years ago. I still think it's a great intro into climate, and the first section is objective on the whole...there are a couple of other sections...this is from a previous post of mine about the book
Bureau of Meteorology - Has a great intro book into how the climate functions: It is largely non-ideological and fact based. An essential building block into understanding climate.
If you are going to go through it, I would suggest you take note of the following
For some reason the author is overly keen to downplay the role of fluctuations in solar radiation in the determination of climate (p.12) in spite of the fact that there is what looks like a reasonable correlation (not causation, because they have not been able to test for this) - This is I suspect due to the fact the a lot of AGW sceptics use this as a their key tenet. However the asocitative evidence is there to see - Intuitively is must have some impact, although the extent of its role is up for debate imho.
Although clearly it is mostly written by a very knowlegable scientists there are a few instance, when a non-scientist has got involved, (probably a Gov. department minder to make sure the guy sticks to the story - this is cleary evident in figure 29, where the table lists all greenhouse gase & their impact & our knowedge about them, and omits the most important greenhouse gas - water vapour. It is a crap table anyway, subjective and has little to do with science - it C02 ideology.
There is also a very good summary of the methods involved in Climate Modelling, how it is done & what their limitations are: while the models get better as time goes on, they still have quite a way to go to be realistic - interestingly, there is wide variation in results in terms of the role of cloud cover in the greenhouse effect - a key area - the fact that the models are unable to provide adequate simulations of these, and a host of other factors, implies we should take climate model projections with more than a few grains of salt. - The IPCC & Rudd et. al clearly have not.
Interestingly the author write of the essential failure of regional climate modeling (given the great disparity in results of different models int he same areas - a lesson is there?)
The "hockey stick" graph previously mentioned in this thread appears- this famous graph has been discredited, and the figures re-cast. read &b decide for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
There is also a Chapter on the IPCC reporting, which is a good read if you want to scare the kids before bed
