Gothesca states that "Australia needs to look at funding our scientists and manufacturers who work in this area."

We are suffering, or about to suffer more of, the consequences of such Government aid.

Most of the scientists who promote AGW, viz. at universities and Govt instrumentalities, are funded by the Government. They wittingly defend the AGW line so as to get more funding.

The Government's proposed imposition of a carbon tax is designed to subsidise the growth of inefficient and unreliable renewable energy producers, but penalise cost-efficient and reliable coal-derived electricity producers. Electricity consumers will have to bear the resulting steep energy price rises.

It is ironical that the Cancun Conference prescribed that developed countries donate hundreds of billions of dollars to developing countries so as to instal relatively unproductive renewable energy generators, rather than much more productive coal-fired ones.

I would like to ask Prof Ridd if he has plugged the more realistic
fossil fuel availability amounts from Prof Kjell Alklett's paper into
the IPCC modelling program ?

There is such a large difference between the three inputs that the IPCC
has used and the Uppsala amounts of oil and coal burning that maybe
everyone has been wasting all this effort and internet bandwidth to
say nothing of the money spent on conferences and government
expenditure for nothing.

I know that it is like swearing in church but someone had to say that
the emperor has no clothes !