I don't believe we can live in a world that doesn't include oil. Nor will we be able to grow broad acre crops/feed the world, without it.
And we are running out of it.
Fortunately its not too hard to make as much as we will ever need.
We can grow oil rich algae, which only needs 1-2% of the water of conventional crops; and that water can be effluent, which produces optimal growth outcomes, or a doubled body-weight every twenty four hours!
Algae are up to 60% oil, and absorb 2,5 times their own body-weight in carbon, both of which can double every twenty four hours! Some types produce a naturally occurring diesel, others, jet fuel. I've seen estimates, that with economies of scale, would see this retailed, even with a fuel excise imposed, for just 44 cents a litre!
Climate change is not a problem, but rather, endless opportunity!
Rhrosty

"If AGW theory is right it has no effect on climate."

Words of a lawyer, not a scientist.

You still do not understand what "scientifically robust" means. Just because it has been 'peer reviewed' or 'analysed', does not mean it is robust.

Either you are deliberately trying to deceive, or you don't know what you're talking about, cohenite.

"legally and scientifically AGW has been disproved".

Again, you are confusing (deliberately) law with science.

ozdoc, argument by declaration such as what you are doing presumes some sort of superiority or official keeping of the standards; what gives you the right to talk down to the rest of us?

Anyway impress us with your thesis as to why the papers I link to aren't "robust" disproof of AGW?

Cohenite, linking to ‘anti-global warming’ or politically motivated blog sites does not make for rational or respectful discourse.

As to the papers ‘cited’ in your linked blog sites? Carl Sagan once said; “not all scientific statements have equal weight”.

I agree, some are tested, replicated and cited more often, for obvious reasons.

Yours, on the other hand aren’t, for the same reasons. Nevertheless, they should keep trying.

Oh, and please don't infer that I was talking down to you or anyone else. It's just that some people have more relevant experience and credentials than others.

Put another way, just because you or I have an opinion on a topic that may interest us doesn't make our opinion right.

You're a good example of was I was talking about in my review OzDoc. Someone who refuses to debate the issues on the basis that we have to use your version of peer review. Spit your arguments out so the public can adjudicate, don't hide behind authority - that's the preserve of the elitist, the authoritarian, and frequently the fascist.

If you want "rational or respectful discourse" you have to be rational and respectful yourself, and condemning resources because you don't like the sites they come from is neither.

>>Spit your arguments out so the public can adjudicate<<

Can they? 40% of them don't know the Earth's orbital period. Do you really think that every member of the public is equally able to understand and evaluate scientific arguments?

If we're going to have people adjudicating on subjects they're woefully ignorant about, why don't we let the IPCC judge rhythmic gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics judges choose the Academy Awards, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences replace the bench of the High Court, the former High Court Justices judge the Country Women's League sponge-making competition and the CWL release the first Country Women's League report on climate change?

Seems about as reasonable as letting the forty-percenters adjudicate scientific arguments.

Cheers,

Tony