Dear Belly,

The problem is huge.

We're living at a hinge of history that's
going to determine just which way this
Energy-Climate Era will swing. If we're
going to manage what's already unavoidable
and avoid what will really be unmanageable,
we need to make sure everything we do from
here on helps to build a real, sustainable,
scalable solution.

But how do we walk the line between a
can-do optimism and a keen awareness that the
hour is late and the scale of the problems
overwhelming?

Belly, I don't have the answers - I can only
hope that someone else does.

*A little while back, our PM cited a couple of hot days in Adelaide as proof of AGW,*

That is exactly why I think the whole thing is being turned into
a bit of a religion.

If we look at the historical data, back as far as records go,
there have always been droughts, floods, heatwaves, fires etc.

Not just here, but in Africa and other parts of the world.

The Victorian fires were commonly blamed on climate change. Never
mind that years of fuel had built up and nobody had bothered to
reduce the fireloads. It must be climate change!

Every drought in Africa is now blamed on climate change, with the
hint that they should be paid billions in compensation by the evil
West who are seemingly to blame.

Now Kevie has seemingly joined the same bandwagon, to try and make
his case for an ETS.

Sounds just like a new religion to me.

We've previously been told here in SW Western Australia, that
our region is seemingly the worst region affected by climate change
in Australia. For some years the rainfall did in fact decrease, yet
in the last three years we have had some of the best seasons ever.

So I remain a bit of skeptic, given that the true believers are
blaming everything on climate change, which is clearly not the case.

Dear Belly,

Climate-change deniers remind me of the person
who goes to the doctor for a diagnosis, and
when the doctor tells them, "If you don't
stop smoking, there's a 90% chance you'll die
of lung cancer." the patient replies,
"Oh, doctor, you mean you're not 100% sure?
Then I'll keep on smoking!"

Foxy,
100 reasons for you not to be afraid:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Hi Belly - the reason the Greens rightly opposed the final form of the ETS is that it had been compromised to the point of being worse than useless. That's why the denialists could correctly claim that it would be little more than a "Green Tax".

However, the big difference between the Greens and the denialist Opposition on this issue is that the Greens recognise that AGW is probably the most important issue facing all of humanity today. With the Tories, on the other hand, slightly over half of them are in complete denial about the issue, while the rest want to be seen to be doing something about it - so long as it doesn't cost too much and as long as somebody else acts first.

A bit like Copenhagen, really.

Dear Herman,

In exchange, I want you to get hold of the book
by Thomas L. Friedman, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded,"
from your local library and read it - OK?

Anyway, while I've got your attention -
here's wishing you and your family
all the Joys of Christmas and a truly great 2010!