This from Richard Heinberg “It’s strange that the failed forecasts of optimists get comparatively little public attention, given that they are numerous. The most relevant example, around 1998, when modern Peak Oil discussion was just hatching, the IEA, the US DoE, and USGS all issued forecasts that world oil production would grow to 120 million barrels per day by 2020, prices would remain at the level of $20 per barrel (in 1998 dollars) even beyond that date. In 2004, when it was already clear that those forecasts had no chance of being realised, Daniel Yergin declared that oil prices would stay at $40 per barrel for the next 15 years. THe IEA, DOE, USGS nor Daniel Yergin foresaw a situation in which crude oil production would flat-line for seven years beginning in 2005, or where prices would reach up to $147 a barrel as in 2008. It’s pretty obvious that the peakists had the more accurate and useful take on world petroleum prices and supply levels during the past decade.

So a spurt of new production from “tight” shale deposits now serves as a pretext to declare victory. The Peak Oil debate is not a sporting event. What matters is not who wins, but what reality awaits us. Will we see a continuing plateau in global crude oil production? How long will it last? How big a proportional contribution to total liquids production will we see from tar sands, shale, and other un-conventionals?

Still, there are a few observations that no serious energy analyst can dispute. Oil exploration and production costs are skyrocketing, super-giant oilfields still account for 60 percent of world crude production are aging, and so the more modest contribution of unconventionals, which are expected to be both expensive and slow to come on line, must push against a tide of depletion and decline. It’s only a question of when the overall global production decline begins, not if.

We will not substantially change our collective behaviour until crisis is upon us.

In short, things will go better for us if we resist denial rather than engaging in it."

Tom write

'Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have risen by 36% since 1750 with ice-core data indicating levels are higher now than in the last 800,000 years and geological evidence suggesting as long as 20 million years. This has been attributed to the burning of fossil fuels, which in the last few decades accounts for three-quarters of human emissions (most of the remainder from deforestation).'

Please Dr stick to medicine. The above quote demonstrates ignorance, blind faith and much of the reason why pseudo science has such a bad name. Surely you have not the faith to believe such nonsense.

Divergence;
My main problem with AGW is that it takes no accurate account of the
amount of fossil fuels available.
The IPCC puts three different levels of available fuels into its
computers and says, Thats it Boys, go to it !

Well unfortunately Prof Kjell Alkett and his group, Global Energy
Systems at Upsalla University comes up with a quite different figure
of the amount of fossil fuel availability.
Does that change the IPCCs projections ? The hell it does !
I suspect that they have too much invested in their previous position
to be able to admit they got it wrong.
Could this be the reason IPCC are claiming legal immunity from prosecution ?

Also I believe we are worrying about the wrong problem.

"...The above quote demonstrates ignorance and blind faith...."

On the contrary, runner, ignorance and blind faith are the particular specialties of your "pseudo" intellect.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/temperatures-may-rise-5-degresss-by-2070/3887672

Energy has always been the main driver of societies, but for the last 30 years we were unable to pay for the energy supply we wanted on a real time basis, so we issued more money-as-debt to pay for it.

Basically, we do not have enough cheap energy to continue a growth path, but we have a plenty of energy to have a meaningful, robust society at a lower level of output. Yes, we have an energy shortage, but it is not a true one. It is only one that does not allow us to continue global economic growth in the way that our politicians and institutions expect.

This is important because the majority of peak oil aware people think we should be devoting our resources towards energy alternatives. The reality is that our system is out of 'capital' (low cost liquid fuels and by proxy, available credit) and lots of other aspects of society that we take for granted need more urgent support. We are getting lulled into thinking that efficiency and renewables are the answer to what we face when the more pressing problem is our dependence on globalisation built on assumptions that are no longer valid

Poirot, a quote from the ABC hardly constitutes absolute proof of anything. The overly simplistic assumption that CO2 and temperature are causally related is discussed here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

The lack of accounting for other influences in temp changes is extraordinary in the AGW mode of thinking.

Its easy to avoid reading opposing views but if people did read more widely then they would see this issue is very far from being 'settled' even in scientific terms.