"crops would suck up CO2 from the air as they grow and then be burned in power stations to generate energy, after which the resulting CO2 emissions would be captured and buried. So CO2 is moved from the air to the earth, while generating energy - essentially the reverse of burning fossil fuels."
Errr.... Isn't this precisely what we are doing currently? Where did the coal come from? This is just a 'time' factor. Let me know when 'carbon sequestration' from coal power plants is viable technologically and economically.

"Investment in biofuels - once the poster child of renewables - fell 26 percent in 2013, to its lowest level since before George W. Bush kick-started the corn-to-ethanol race in the U.S. almost a decade ago."

And how many of the poorest starved because of this morally unconscionable policy?

The IPCC is correct in stating that the poorest nations will be hit hardest with climate change. Perhaps the dismantling of the IPCC would be the most efficacious approach to assisting the poor and ameliorating poverty.

Our author is a well known supporter of the baseless assertion of AGW, and seizes this opportunity to back the latest effort of the IPCCriminals in support of the AGW fraud.

He notes that” it avoids the kinds of specific forecasts that have sparked controversy in the past.”, by which he means that they do not, as in the past. rely on their self proclaimed authority in matters of climate, to assert outright lies, so obviously unsupported by science. This is not quite true, as they still assert that human emissions cause climate change, despite the fact that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

As Professor Bob Carter says of assertions based:” upon the supposition that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming.
Instead, the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal.
Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change

One paragraph of the article only needs a small adjustment to make it sound encouraging.The words replaced are in brackets.
“The bad (good) news is that the transformation of the global energy system the IPCC seeks is already partly under way. The good (bad) news is that progress is fragile, and might be reversed.”

If you are going to be sensible and talk about comparative energy from solar and the fossils then speak about intermittency and density; for example compare Installed Capacity [IC], with Capacity Factor [CF] and Reliability Factor [RF]; for instance the RF of both solar and wind is at most 10%; which means the probability of 90% of its IC occurring at any one time is 10%. That’s intermittency.

Density can be considered by noting that a solar farm with an IC equivalent to Bayswater would cover 500 square kilometres.

Anyone who presses renewables is condemning humanity to bankruptcy and darkness and should be treated as the misanthropic Luddite they are.

It was, I suppose, asking too much for a reasoned discussion to continue. The point I made in my first comment on this thread is one I would like all readers and contributors to think about: 1st and 2nd generation renewable energy resources are going to be lacking in some areas. That doesn't mean we should stop developing them. 3rd, 4th and 5th generation renewables will be increasingly more efficient and will occupy less land and resources.
Coal is still too good a petro-chemical feedstock, to misuse a term, to waste it by burning and the costs and dangers of nuclear energy are too high.
Development of renewable energy sources has to continue.

Peddle your arrogance elsewhere Brian; "reasoned discussion" my foot.

Intermittency and density; staple those words on your forehead; maybe you'll learn what they mean by osmosis.

Go and study Betz law and the Shockley–Queisser limit; and then explain how Thermophotovoltaic devices can extend that limit.

For anyone who is interested Thorium:

http://www.energyandcapital.com/report/investing-in-the-future-of-thorium/982

It seems to me Brian that when you seek reasoned and polite discussion you desire that your points of view must not only be respected but also your underlying belief in AGW be accepted.

If that basic belief is challenged you describe that challenge as undesirable by calling it rude impolite etc.

That Brian is unreasonable.

You should be saying look fellas here is the proof supporting AGW. Now let's go onto discussing the role of renewables.

BTW I am polite but I bet you don't possess the where with all to answer my question.

Simply show me the proof of AGW.