Hang on, I can see where this is going after the footage runs showing some ice chunks dropping into the sea off Antarctica (a.k.a. "summer"):

Mumsy yells "Help! Lifeguard! My son THE LAWYER is drowning!"

Thanks for your clearly written article Mr Keim.

If we don't listen to the acknowledged experts and start acting upon their advice then the consequences will be disastrous.

I think Tim Flannery said that Australia didn't need to build nuclear generators but I think he expects more electricity to be generated from non fossil fuel sources

Yeah, but Flannery's that Wentworth Group guy mooted the idea that we should pump sulphur into the atmosphere in order to prevent GW! Yep, Oz of the Year.

I am no admirer of Hansen. Quite the opposite. He is one of these scientists I have spoken to too often of late, who have cast aside all scientific objectivity in favour of alarmism based on a set of really dogy climate models. However, to my astonishment, he has said something sensible. To have even a hope of meeting his carbon dioxide target - or almost any target in the foreseeable future - then nuclear energy is the only way to go. Switching to gas, or alternative energy simply will not cut it - at least not for the drastic cuts required by the aforementioned dodgy theory. Way to go Hanson! The oil companies will be inviting you as guest speaker to their conferences next.

I have long been an objector to the use of nuclear power. The unlimited, cheap, safe power promised by scientist in the 1960's just did not happen. It turned out to be disaster after disaster. And now we have great piles of nuclear waste.
With all new technology there are unforeseen side effects. With nuclear energy they came thick and fast. But now that nuclear power is no-longer a new technology have we learnt enough to use it safely?
If the technology can be explained without any 'sell' and it looks reasonable to me then I would support it. The sorts of things I would want to know are about the waste issues. Where and how long? If the new technology can feed on its waste can existing waste be recycle through 4th generation power plants? Can existing power plants be upgraded?
I hope this issue does not get caught up in the debacle called debate on the GW issue. GW or not, if nuclear power is to be supported it must stand by itself and not just the least objectionable or easiest alternative.
It seems time to drop the fear and dogma, and look at the new technology with a critical, but not judgmental eye.

OK so where are the "next generation" pebble-bed reactors that are supposed to be very safe cheap and wonderful? Do any exist yet? Can they be run by non-military folks with full transparency so we get something viable and well managed?
A lot of the traditional anti-nuke is the link to weapons, the military lies and spin, and the fact that it is *not* cheap energy. If waste costs are factored and military issues removed it is currently *unpriced* because they still haven't solved the waste issue. Even letting it sit around costs more than renewables that are developed to potential.
I'm one of the rare folks that will embrace nukes when they make the grade. But not before, and not based on military misinformation.
Clean coal is indeed a joke. Just mining coal releases methane and CO2 so even CC at the smokestack won't work. Hansen was spot on there.
Glad to see the useless "cap and trade" system being told for what it is too: Another "useless bastard tax".
Alas, we support so many "non-productive millionaires" (AKA "useless bastards") that a few more are hardly likely to factor into this decision.