At the risk of repeating myself, you are all arguing about what may
well turn out to be a non event.
The Uppsala Universities Global Energy Systems Group has made a study
of all oil fields, coal fields and natural gas fields and published
the paper in a resources journal.

The upshot is that there is significantly less fossil fuels to be burnt
than previously believed.

The IPCC has yet to rerun its computer models against the March 2010
more realistic data for fossil fuel availability.

So why are you still discussing it ?

The argument is redundant until such times as they rerun the program.
I hope the IPCC is not trying to ignore the new data.
They wouldn't would they ?

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/validity-of-the-fossil-fuel-production-outlooks-in-the-ipcc-emission-scenarios/

or

http://tinyurl.com/yhqn2pv

Bazz, would you buy a car from the IPCC?. Their funding was pulled by the US on Jan. 19th, 2011. They have been soundly trashed by one of their own authors and many others. They are done like a dogs' dinner, finnished, caput, a dead parrot. Forget them, everyone else has.

the landline program, reported on the greenhouse polutant nitrous oxide[300 times worse than co2]

it might be on this link
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3162720.htm

if not it will be on this one
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3162717.htm

anyhow about one third
of all nitrogen applied to farms gets turned into nitrous oxide..
[300 times worse per part than one part of co2]

there followed this report
with a guy who talked sense re carbon tax etc

he revealed some scary info..scary as in
it costs 20 trillion to remove .0001 percent of co2

so clearly taxing it
..is of no use whatsoever

thus the tax is a fraud*
..a clear scam

he said ..we would be bettter off
putting our money into research..
to find alternatives..

this would require less than we are wasting[on solar/wind scams
and the solar hotwater subsidies]..that do little or nothing

AND only needing of arround a billion per year
not the 35 to 46 billion the NEW BIG TAX WILL RAKE IN
*[each year]

this link links to part one
also interesting
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3156370.htm

these links deserve their own topic
but mostly they deserve reply from the think to know it alls
blogging for the new tax...

[who arn't raking it in
off the green subsidies...lol]
either selling
or putting the govt gifts ..on their roofs

or getting a feedin tarrif..[up to 3 times the normal rate]
and free nightime power..talk about bludgers..oppertuinists

greenies bah
they love selling lies to induce fears
to make others feel guilty..and for them to feel good

@bonmot, Friday, 11 March 2011 3:34:17 PM

Regarding the discredited Skeptical Science article you linked, I suggest you read the Rebuttal which also discredits the "Update",

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html

@Posted by jeremy, Friday, 11 March 2011 4:01:06 PM

You have been presented with irrefutable evidence to what you demanded. The list includes papers that not only support skepticism of AGW but also the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW. It is all in there,

850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Just so you understand the common skeptic argument is not that it is impossible for man-made activities to cause "any" warming (no matter how small that may be) but that it is no cause for alarm and the warming will be largely beneficial.

@jeremy, Friday, 11 March 2011 7:14:26 PM

That is correct I believe increases in cold weather and snowfall, record cold temperatures and record snowfalls to be inconsistent with the theory of "global warming". However, I do believe them to be consistent with climate change.

It is clear you do not understand anything about the Peer-Reviewed literature. Most papers require a subscription or a fee to view them. Sometime these are available for free online, where I have found them, it is linked via the (PDF) link. If a paper has (PDF) following the title then it is fully available. Thus the first paper is fully available. It is out of my control to be able to provide the full paper where it is not already available online and this elementary knowledge is known by anyone who would make such silly requests as you have.

You have thus irrefutably demonstrated you have absolutely no knowledge about the peer-reviewed literature and are instead repeating talking points you heard elsewhere. You have effectively discredited yourself.