A bit rich for the author to be calling on restraints after making his money from mining and political advising. Lots of gloom and doom and rhetoric in this article. Why is it that so many preaching conservation and socialism are happy to make their comfortable living from capitalism and then preach against it for everyone else

Thomas Homer Dixon’s article on societal collapse is perhaps worth reading,
“..Being ready means preparing today for breakdown tomorrow. Times of crisis are times of enormous social fluidity, when societies can be pushed into a new path, either for good or for bad. They’re moments, too, of great danger. People are scared, angry, and searching for someone to blame—just the attitudes that extremist leaders can exploit to build political power and divide group from group..”
http://www.homerdixon.com/download/prepare_for_tomorrows_breakdown.pdf

Some current thinking still has us ‘barking’ in the wrong direction..

For those with a basic understanding of statistics: Correlation is not causation. In terms of global warming and CO2 emissions, there looks to be a rough fit.

However..

For those who have a basic grasp of science: Science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations.

For those who can apply logic and common sense: The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming. As yet, we do not completely address the root causes of our current quandary...

Applying logic and common sense, “most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming” is an unsupportable statement.
It is unsupportable on the basis of whether it is either “most” or “some”; on the quality of evidence upon which the “overestimating” is based; on the implication that the downside of ignoring the evidence is unimportant, should that evidence prove to be correct.
I think it is unlikely that we will ever completely address the root causes of our current quandary: our arrogance of belief in our species being above natural laws; and in this planet’s capability to provide for infinite increase - of resource consumption, and of dumping for our wastes.
I live in hope that I am wrong, that there will be change. For the sake of future human generations.
In the meantime, “Ah, my beloved, fill the cup that clears today of past regrets and future fears” – to quote my favourite Muslim the, delightful Omar Khayyam. And enjoy the wonderment of the best of nature that remains; that which past generations, and our own, have bequeathed us. Explore the tantalising snippets of knowledge that constantly unravels from it. Get it now, before it is gone. There is still music to be made on our Titanic, in a church or outside it, depending upon proclivities.
But, don't lose perspective - some good may yet come of it.

Reckon it's about time we should be looking deeper than just behind the eyes and ears, Schneider.

Us troops even talked about such things while waiting for discharge near the end of WW2.

We were a specialist unit which had been formed to ponder, and the dropping of the atom bomb made us think even deeper, wondering whether science and technology though helping to win the war, might eventually backfire on us.

Certainly the failures in Iraq have proven that - thought thought and talk talk - might prove better than war war, and I guess that is what Peter is trying to get across?

Maybe it is also the message that Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela both proved to the world

True, colinsett, my statement is largely unsupportable, as an ‘overestimation of evidence’ can be more an exercise in subjectivity. Objectively though, man grabs a quarter of the earth’s renewable resources – perhaps suggesting our innate greed.

I agree, with Johan Rockstroem, the director of the Stockholm Environment Institute, when he says the livelihoods of more than three billion people in the world are being undermined by the wealth of the privileged few (due an exploitative use of resources).

As a species, man uses a remarkable share of the earth's plant productivity to meet the needs and wants of one species - we use up almost a quarter of the sun's energy captured by plants, the most of any species. The problem therefore is not just confined to rich vs. poor, albeit an important part of the equation.

Rockstroem also says that we’ve come to the end of the road of sustainable development as we know it today. Science alone cannot deal with this. The risk of environmental refugees, the risk of societal collapse is imminent – I agree here also.

Our talking and thinking must lead us to an action where we need to make massive changes in the equity and stewardship of the planet which goes way beyond climate change.

1. Analogy between the Germans, WWII and the current Climate Change debate is a little out of context - or out of left field
2. Personally, I don’t buy into the political rhetoric; not when our illustrious leader waffles on about all the growth under his stewardship, and both contenders to the throne bow tow to the Chinese leaders, when China is one of the worst offenders, not only in green house gas emissions; but work ethics (lack of); human and animal rights abuses… and growth at any cost policy.
Hasn’t sold me; why - because I am going to pay more for my electricity,( even though I am trying to use it less) am paying more for my water usage (even though I try and use less) , and will soon have to hang on to the running boards of the train to the city because of overcrowding , the result of no foresight/or political inaction for the infrastructure required for the massive influx of southerners (the rate of 1000 per week since 1994) + a Premier who espouses Australia’s population to be 50mil ? And you want me to take climate change seriously and 'go back to basics'
I started out at the basics and i have now desire to go back.