Paul, I admire your confidence that, at last, things might be heading politically in the right direction but I haven't seen any science which shows that we can reach the kind of targets suggested to stabilise at 350 ppm without a massive change to our economical environment.

If you accept that such massive changes are needed then you are indeed brave to suggest that politicians of all the key countries will find this acceptable. I very seriously doubt it and such action by our world leaders will not deliver 350 ppm.

If you believe that we can decarbonise our energy sufficiently quickly to stabilise at 350 ppm without such changes to our economic wealth then please point me to the reputable science that shows this is so.

Pardon me for being so ignorant but why is carbon dioxide being vilified?
Back in the 20th Century I was taught that CO2 is a plant food and is exhaled every time I breath. Its availability is influential on plant growth and if we are successful in reducing it there is a level below which plants will not grow. With a burgeoning world population and fewer plants being grown we will have conflicts as nations fight for the last calorie.
If we are, indeed, suffering from abnormal climate change, we should perhaps read the work of the late Rhodes Fairbridge. (per Google)
Of interest is the huge financial profit that will be made by Al Gore as he manipulates the world financiers to engage in carbon credit trading and all of its slimy derivatives. I refer to the October 22nd 2008 meeting (one year ago)in London UK where world financiers met to work out how to make the best profits out of the situation.
Of note is the recent global financial crisis where the USA financial barons caused the world financial crash.
Trading in CO2 credits or, buying and selling thin air, is leaving us all open to another great crash. Why not Google NIPCC and see what they say about the IPCC?

Good to see such optimism even if it is not supported by action at government level. Scientists worldwide have called for rapid and significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 in order to avoid global temperatures increasing by more than 2C. That is not going to happen.

China has announced its intention of continuing to increase greenhouse gas emissions for at least the next 20 years and the USA, Russia and India have committed themselves, irrevocably, to precisely nothing. And with unmatched perfidy, Rudd has committed Australia to a farcically inadequate 5 percent reduction by 2020 while actively supporting the coal industry and major emitters with massive subsidies.

The 20 highest emitting countries are responsible for over 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. They are fully aware of the consequences of not reducing their emissions. None of them has committed to the 2020 target of achieving 25-40 percent reduction below 1990 emission levels. Chances of their agreeing to do so at Copenhagen seem at best remote.

True, some major international companies are taking measures to reduce their emissions but none of them fall into the category of major emitters. It is good to see some commercial lending agencies giving preference to lending for low emission producers. Their example, albeit driven by mercenary considerations, may even persuade international agencies such as the Asian Development Bank, the UNDP, the IBRD and others to do the same?

However, until governments take heed of the warnings of scientist and act accordingly, it becomes increasingly likely that by 2050 global temperatures will have risen by 5C and that except for remnants of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps, the world will be ice-free, sea levels will have risen by at least 3 metres and coastal flooding will have done massive, irreparable damage.

Well I suppose the 'prophets' have been proved totally wrong when it comes to gw so now the debate will change to the oceans. Unfortunatly the prophets won't be stoned or even pay back a cent for the lies they have told to the gullible. About the truest thing Paul writes is 'The goal posts are also shifting in the science.'

My God...What a load of extremist nonsense.

And he is a Special Adviser to an accountancy firm called KPMG...about what and to whom would be interesting to know.

Remind me not to pay any attention to anything KPMG produces...they have already made a pigs ear out of a planning study for Greater Adelaide peddling much of the same contradictory extremist twaddle.

Multiple contextual uses of the word sustainability but no where do they define it. Extrapolations and assumptions about climate change and the future costs of electricity and the savings likely to be made, all flawed to hell—just pulling figures and assumptions out of their collective backsides.

Referring to sources that are not available for anyone to sight. Errors galore.

Just like this effort really. At least with this type work holding sway, the “Tim Flannery in Canada effect” will no doubt ensue; the more he and Flannery open their mouths the more people will be, and are being, turned off by it.

Another non climate scientist blithering on .. as usual

Where's the outrage from the crowd that castigated Mark /Curmudgeon?

Bit selective are we all about authors?

AGW good, scepticism bad ..?