IPCC calculations can be inherently worthless, when measured against historical fact, and the open book that is the paleontological record!
This record tells us we must not allow Ambient temperatures to rise beyond 2C.
Given the last time that happened, the tundra/permafrost melted, releasing enough carbon and or methane, to push ambient temperatures up by around a total 5C.
You think a rise of 5C not too much of a problem?
Imagine a windswept world, where the UK and virtually all similar latitudes are salt laden windswept deserts, regularly traversed by winds exceeding 300 KLMS PH!
Or regular force seven and eight storms; and rainfall measured in metres per day!
What would happen to the topsoil and all that depended on it then?
Imagine a world where no grassland or forest is possible, or barely possible, let alone cereal crops!
What would anyone or anything eat then?
What if sea levels rise to around 60-70- metres!
Yes it could be seen as alarmist, if it wasn't already part of known archaeological history. And just because of a 5C increase in average ambient temperatures!
All we need do, is change our economies over to cheaper than coal economy improving thorium, or vastly cheaper homemade endlessly sustainable, biogas. It's too easy!
Biogas (methane) works nearly as well as hydrogen in modern ceramic fuel cells!
And given the burn is replaced by the fuel cell's chemical reaction, the exhaust product is mostly water vapor.
We just need to crack on with these ECONOMY IMPROVING changes, rather than mutter like mad monks, moribund mantras, none more imbecilic, given the possible consequences; than, the government has no business in business.
Saving lives and the economy, is very much their business, and they need to do what it takes, to do just that!
Even if that means, resuming former CORE responsibilities, and getting back into the power/cash cow essential service business!
As opposed to trying to duck shove their historical responsibilities and privatize everything not nailed down!
Rhrosty.

"And given the burn is replaced by the fuel cell's chemical reaction, the exhaust product is mostly water vapor"

The products are the same as combustion products, CO2 and H2O

Rhosty, have you not noticed that human emissions cannot be shown to have any measurable effect on climate. There is no reason to prevent emissions of carbon dioxide.

Have you not noticed that the increase of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, falsely asserted to be human caused, did not result in the warming predicted by the fraud-backers, whose lies you have repeated in your post?

The increase in CO2 has improved crop production world wide, increased plant life and caused greening of huge deserts.

What makes you write such nonsense?

Luciferase. The products may well be the same, but the (inverse) proportions are not! Repeat, mostly water vapor!
What are you afraid of?
Some verifiable facts perhaps?

LL lies? There's stacked to the ceiling, walls of them, in most university libraries!
See paleontologist section! All universities stock some!
Just be sure not to try to read too many big words, it might hurt your brain, or even cause your cerebral cortex, providing you actually have one, to burn and smoke, and maybe even go into premature melt down.
Albeit, judging from you extremely ignorant comments, that may have already occurred!?
Lies LL?
Okay,[shoot the messenger} vile villain, if you want I'll repeat a few of yours, if I can find the time to search through a veritable library of them, if only to eliminate the rest of the, par for the course, (play the man not the ball) risible rubbish!
Is impugning my personal integrity the very best you can do as scientific rebuttal!? Really? You're sure?
Then go for it tiger, attack the old man in the wheelchair; the only one looking really really stupid and moronic is you!
However, if you care to dish up that infantile impugning again, I just might ignore it with the absolute indefatigable contempt it surely deserves!
Rhrosty.

Thanks for the comments Peter and others.

The issues are so obvious that the other side has ceased debating them except to scream sovereign risk and the possibility of The Day After Tomorrow fantasies.

But the dead weight continues

Rhostry, not trying to undermine, just correcting your statement. Oxygen is the oxidant in a fuel cell and the hydrocarbon is the reductant. The proportion of water to CO2 is the same as for combustion.

You are correct only in respect of a hydrogen fuel cell where hydrogen is the reductant. H2O is the only product in that case.

Alan Moran (alanjohn?), your focus on the hiatus and upon NASA's deep ocean paper is typical. Consideration ALL the facts points to a need for action. When surface temperature resumes its upward thrust what'll it be then, more wait and see talk about whether there will be another hiatus? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/s_07202009_520.gif