The problem with gathering political action behind doing something about climate change is that the danger of inaction is not immediate and people are reluctant to make changes unless they are forced to or see it as in their own interest. The changes required in this case are so dramatic that the public is unlikely to take them on willingly (if they even fully understand the need). The other problems are that our elected representatives will do nothing that adversely affects the economy in the short term and that energy supplies are now starting to fail to meet demand (hence the increase in the price of oil). The moment economic growth falters, all talk of doing something about climate change will go out the window. You will hear, "Yes, we need to do something about climate change BUT we have more immediate pressing problems that require action now".

The "good" news (for this planet - not necessarily western civilization or its oversized human population) is that accessible/useable fossil fuel reserves apprear to be more limited than previously believed. We already saw Prof. Kjell Aleklett's article on Online Opinion, "Severe climate change unlikely before we run out of fossil fuel" ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933 ) and there is now an excellent lecture online by Prof. David Rutledge of Caltech (Chair of the Division of Engineering and Applied Science) predicting the same thing and showing lots of data to support it. You can access the lecture materials/see the lecture here:

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/

So it's "Mother Nature to the rescue!" - only we will not enjoy her methods.

The two perspectives on global warming are not all that different from each other. The end result is that global warming is happening, and does need to be addressed.
Murray Hogarth cites nuclear power as one solution. But this is not only no solution to global warming, but something that creates new and bigger problems. Have we all forgotten Edward de Bono’s lesson on “Problem multiplying solutions”. Nuclear power is one of those: as a “solution” to global warming, it creates nuclear weapons proliferation, risk of massive accidents, terrorism risks, intractable toxic waste, astronomic financial costs to the present and future generations, and long-term environmental and health ill-effects. All this will be within a social climate of fear, high security, secrecy, and repression of dissidents.
Perhaps this wouldn’t be so bad, if in fact, nuclear power did combat global warming. But it doesn’t. Sure, the actual production of electricity from the nuclear reactor might be, (only might) greenhouse gas free. But what about the greenhouse gases released in uranium mining, milling, enrichment, transport, building of reactors, building of waste-storage, decommissioning of reactors, waste transport, digging and management of underground waste dumps….

What we need are “Solution-multiplying solutions” – energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies – safe, truly clean, and providing so many job opportunities. I guess that everyone has forgotten that Margaret Thatcher wanted nuclear power, rather than coal – her reason was that there would be a much smaller workforce – so reducing the power of unions!

An excellent and informative review which makes me determined to go out and buy both books ASAP.

Defamation law will not be a problem if everything the authors are saying is (a)verifiably true or on a balance of probabilities likely to be true and (b)in the public interest that it be publicly discussed. I am sure that the publishers and the authors would have made sure that everything in these two books meets those tests. We can safely read them in that knowledge.

Roy Williams (and the authors/books he has reviewed) has clearly defined the problems we in Australia, and humanity in general, have insofar as our attitude to climate change.

We must come up with solutions. It would be great if contributors to OLO could do so in a constructive fashion, with reasoned and logical discussion as Michael and Christina have shown. It would be much better than the ridicule and vitriol that one often sees from so called deniers.

We expect our political leaders to act not only in the national interest, but at the highest levels of society. The evidence portrayed in these two books suggests otherwise.

Whether you believe in human induced climate change or not, there should not be an argument about just doing the right thing by the environment – all else will follow.

Thanks for the link Michael.

Christina, you raise good points about nuclear power albeit there are over 600 plants worldwide and increasing. I agree we don’t need them in Australia; we could go geothermal now if our current government were really serious

I agree global warming is happening. Can it be addressed ie. controlled? I doubt it. Both of these authors seem to be of the mistaken belief that humans can control climate by controlling greenhouse gases. Sure we should look at minimising our output of these gases using technological advances but surely not by creating unnecessary hardship for people. I particularly liked some of the ridiculous notions in this article like:

"the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere will rise by 2C this century because of greenhouse gas emissions in the past. Nothing can stop it."

Err lots of things could stop it. The sun, a volcano, an asteroid...and thats just the big ones. There are lots of little unknowns that could easily reduce the dreaded 2C rise.

“Between 2 degrees and 3 degrees is where humanity has to make our stand”
This is an absolute joke...isn't it?

As for Clive Hamilton, I think he his trying to oust Flannery as Most Hysterical Australian of the Year. Now there's a contest.

"But what about the greenhouse gases released in uranium mining, milling, enrichment, transport, building of reactors, building of waste-storage, decommissioning of reactors, waste transport, digging and management of underground waste dumps…."
I'm sure if we restricted fossil fuels just to mining vehicles it would not be a factor in global warming. Or even used biodiesel in them. This argument doesn't float. The renewables crowd have a lot more work to do if they are going to provide enough power to maintan even a semblance of modern lifestyle.

"We expect our political leaders to act not only in the national interest, but at the highest levels of society. "
Yes but only if the national interest is to act. I hear a lot of people talking about the need for action. When it comes time to "give up" something for the cause we will see political will melt away like icebergs in the arctic.

"So it's "Mother Nature to the rescue!" - only we will not enjoy her methods."
Oh I will...I've always enjoyed her methods.

Fed up with dirty politics? Tired of greasy PR flaks? Had it up to here with stubborn baked-on compromised scientists? Then try new powerful deep-acting Scorcher. Featuring patented GBA (guilt by association) technology and circular reasoning motion, fast-acting Scorcher is guaranteed to kill 99% of right-wing germs from any household think tank. Scorcher is the new handy and versatile way to eliminate even the toughest key diplomats. Just half a page added to your wash will remove the shocks from your jocks, while leaving any left-wing lobby groups squeaky clean. Here's what one customer had to say: "[I'm] determined to go out and buy both books ASAP...I am sure that the publishers and the authors would have made sure that everything in these two books meets those tests. We can safely read them in that knowledge." New Scorcher! Just $29.95. Look for the ominous cover jacket photo in your Borders Supermarket aisle today.