By the way the author of the quotes I posted also pointed out that humankind needs to rapidly wean itself off of a carbon based "economy".

Bugsy,

Very true: Norton et al (and it appears, editors) are M.I.A.

--

CatMack,

There's a significant difference between "environment" and AGW.
Mainstream media and blog sites have difficulty "balancing".
If they were to truly represent mainstream science, it would be skewed 98:2 in favour of AGW proponents.
Suggestion: disregard the spin (from extremists on both sides).

--

Poirot,

"Snark" maybe, justified nonetheless.

--

Anthony Cox (cohenite)

There are more important things in life.

--

Barry,

Must be cathartic admitting you're a "denier".

--

Everybody,

Wishing you all a joyous festive season and a very safe and healthy 2013.

Peter you stated:

"Why do you say that? Do you not realise that we could largely decarbonise electricity globally - and reduce CO2 emissions from energy by about 50% by that act alone - if the 'Progressives' stopped blocking progress?"

I have no problem with your statement, unfortunately we are still consuming approximately 84 million barrels of oil, primarily for transportation uses and this figure (based on the EIA and IEA) is projected to increase to 105 Mbd or thereabouts by 2030, give or take a couple of years.

Notwithstanding the unlikelihood of us ever achieving this level of fossil fuel (oil, NG, cheap liquid) levels, one should still be concerned about the level of pollution this extraction and use may potentially result in.

Given recent projections on conventional oil transportation 'rates' I would suggest that any projections out to 2030 are just that, projections and highly unlikely to be achieved. I believe economic growth, if you want to call it that, will have long disappeared by then and we will all be living in a much more different world.

AGW is unlikely to reach the levels the so-called 'alarmists' claim for one simple reason, there is not enough 'conventional oil' left at an economic growth price to sustain current economic forecasts into the distant future, let alone 2030.

We are on the cusp of a great economic catastrophe and very few people seem to see the writing on the wall.

Much of the argument outlined above will be irrelevant given our realistic economic future lying ahead.

Get ready for a significant financial and economic storm in 2013, (debt and credit) in the real world do not equate to real growth and the price of 'conventional oil' will be the limiting factor.

Cheers

Geoff

Geoff raises the Peak Oil issue; that bike don't run anymore:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4422156.html

Nice to see you back in the fold of the Cornucopian’s Cohenite!, your reference states:

"Moreover, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently predicted that the amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States (mainly in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming) is 1.442 trillion barrels, and this mainly includes technically recoverable oil from shale. That amounts to over five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia and is close to the total world proven oil reserves in 2011."

Well gosh, let's not forget the US and Canada have yet to produce one litre, let alone on gallon of fuel grade petroleum from 'Shale Oil'.

The entire argument on tight oil is a Ponzi scheme and has been proven as such by so many factual scientific arguments that your post is irrelevant. No wonder BP, Chevron and so may other large energy corporations are bailing out of this ridiculous energy field.

I would think that one should look at references like this, including the graph on page 8, which by the way is now 4 years old and the extrapolation made is even more evident given recent BP and IEA/EIA data that adds to the problem underlining your assumption:
http://www.eia.gov/conference/2009/session3/Sweetnam.pdf and a multitude of addition expert, 'peer reviewed' scientific documents including: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-03/commentary-identifying-the-oil-we-re-most-worried-about , so don't give me that crap about peak oil being a non-issue, get with the program and realise we have a real, global energy issue that is being swept under the carpet, one your 'legal' brain seems unable to comprehend and the most basic of physics, like depletion and flow rates from refineries.

No wonder you are so fervent in your support against AGW, you, like most cornucopian stalwarts can't see the wood for the trees, what's left of them anyway.

Enjoy your overdue retirement, I have greater faith in the youth of today who, to some degree, retain the ability to have an open mind and one not blinded by complacency and a realism based on facts that is now indisputable at so many levels it is laughable and you still dare to question the real science.

Geoff, like all alarmists, you are a pessimist; this is not like the ant and grasshopper parable, with sceptics being the grasshopper acting like drunken sailors spending the resources of the planet.

In actual fact the drunken sailors are the alarmists like the IPCC and every government which supports AGW shovelling out money out the door which will leave debts for generations.

The best statement on the resources and resource use on the planet is Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist; but really if you are determined to expect the worst in the face of cogent evidence then off you go and sulk in the corner and leave the rest of us alone.

Bugsy's gotcha with the Norton 1999 paper is hilarious and typical of the alarmists. Norton is like many papers I have read by alarmists who are basically scientific honest and show their results, but can't accept them and then try to explain them away.

Norton says this:

"Despite increases of between 15 and 25% under fumigation, in terms of both total biomass and the biomass of four out of five species, it was impossible to detect a significant effect of CO2. This may reflect an actual lack of response to elevated CO2, or may result from the lack of statistical power owing to low numbers of replicates."

And then this:

"Certainly in the experiment reported here, it appears that intrinsic variability was more important than the effects of CO2, despite differences of between 15 and 25% between fumigated and control rings"

Anything but CO2!

Anyway there is ample evidence that overall, despite issues with N2 in particular, that extra CO2 is a boon to plants and crops:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/person/3960/Morgan223.PartonNewPhytologist.pdf

http://www.timcurtin.com/images/Climate_Change_and_Food_Production.pdf