Philip Stott review: Hot, Flat and Crowded. Why the World Needs a Green Revolution by Thomas L. Friedman - Telegraph

Of course, his thesis depends on the supposed relationships between energy and climate proving to be both correct and predictable. But what if they aren't?

We have now experienced 10 years with no measurable 'global warming', a trend that is likely to continue for another 10 years because of a phenomenon called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Such outcomes were not predicted.

Friedman is also wrong about some of his 'flashing red lights', such as Hurricane Katrina, which had little to do with 'global warming', but a great deal to do with endemic failures in American politics. Hurricane Katrina was a normal atmospheric phenomenon, the science of which has been long known, that affected an old city, built below sea-level on a swamp, with many wooden buildings and a large percentage of disadvantaged people.

Also, do we ever consider that such a Jacobin revolution might prove more dangerous than 'business-as-usual' or traditional adaptation? Should we not apply the precautionary principle to Friedman's fantasies? How likely is it that China, India, Brazil, and the rest will remain content to follow or, as I believe, will they start to create a quite different political bloc?