Max wrote:"What does the range mean? It’s not hard and can be answered with a number of proverbs."

What? That's not at all what it means. Not even close.
It means that they have no idea as to the real so-called climate budget figure. (Note: I think the whole climate budget thing is rubbish, irrespective of what number they concoct).
It means they think the number might be somewhere around 580 (or 420 or 770 or 570). Already it looks iffy. But then they say there a series of unknowns that affect the answer. These unknowns add up to ±900gtCO2. So the 580 guess could be anywhere between -420gt and +1480gt.

That's completely useless as any sort of predictive tool. Its like predicted that a baby will grow up to be between 3 and 15ft tall.

And on this piece of statistical rubbish, you think we should up-end western civilisation. And that's, apparently, following the science.

Heh, Max. Between -420 and +1480. We've come a long way from exactly 565gt haven't we?

I'm gunna explain 'peak oil' to you even though I know you won't understand it. Its hard to think out of the box when you don't even know you're in a box.

We have never, ever run out of a resource. Predictions that we are going to run out of this or that abound, but not a single one has ever been right.
The doomsayers have been predicting the end of oil for over a century. (They've been predicting the end of coal since the mid 19th century). The way they do it is look at how much oil we know about right now, then calculate how much we use and then use simple maths to see where they intersect. Its the same basic error made by Malthus as regards food.

What they always ALWAYS forget is that human ingenuity will find other sources or better ways to use what we've got or both. So the peak oilers said we've got so much left and then its gone. But those who understand the real world know that other sources will be found.

That's why the peak oilers, having been shown to be wrong, now talk about conventional oil. They explain they were wrong because new sources were found, but ignore the fact that others always said they'd be wrong because new sources would be found.

There's an old saying that the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones and the oil age won't end because we ran out of oil. Long before that happens we'll have found other energy sources.

If we were running out of fossil fuels, their price would be going up. But the price isn't going up, is it.

Clearly there has to be some upper limit that applies to all resources. But its made immaterial by the one inexhaustible resource - the human brain.

Further reading:
http://www.juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/simon-abundance-index-new-way-measure-availability-resources

If you decide to answer, please provide the name of three inorganic resources mankind has ever run out of

If you were really trying to debate in good faith, Max, you would by now have looked at the graphs I have been vainly trying to get you to look at and comment upon, what, four or five times now? But in a way your refusal to look at my evidence is heartening to me. You are obviously so insecure in your convictions that you need to avert your eyes from any evidence that does not reinforce your wishful thinking. I, on the other hand, had no trouble looking at your links, and even helpfully picked some of their "logic" apart for you. This convinces me that my side has the confidence of it's convictions and is winning.

You now appear to be pushing the old todge that your side must be right because it is on the side of science. But since there are a lot of scientists who oppose HIGW, the best you can claim is that you represent one side of a scientific dispute. The most extraordinary thing about HIGW is that for almost 40 years, the alarmists have had the total support of almost all of the world's media. The ABC, the BBC, MSN, CNN, as well as newspapers and television stations all over the world have used the incredible power of the media to change governments, start or end wars, create fashions, garner support, endorse candidates, rally for causes, and influence voting, and increasingly, people don't believe a damned word they say about HIGW. This is the most extraordinary aspect of the growing sceptic position.

Now you have the damned cheek to suggest that I should look at more alarmist sites. Like hell. Click upon the links I have provided for you, look at the graph for "Global temperatures, 10,000 years, and tell me by what logic youc an not see a repeating pattern of global warming and cooling, every 1000 years. Then click on my link which will display a graph which appear to display no causal link between CO2 and global temperatures for 570 million years.

I double dog dare ya.

Max,

I agree that solutions should be tested. That was not done with tree planting and the consequences are all too apparent. Yet this geoengineering solution is still heavily promoted. With ocean fertilisation there is very strong opposition, even to small scale testing, so it is impossible to determine what it might be capable of.

As for who pays, I believe that any solution will need to stand up economically. With cost effective nuclear power and a cheap/reliable battery, your argument would be with the sizeable anti-nuclear faction of global warming enthusiasts, not climate catastrophe skeptics.

Cheers

LEGO,
> spokespersons for the HIGW cult, and their media echo chambers, have for 30 years been making fatuous statements,
Not necessarily true! A lot of the ‘failed predictions’ were taken out of context and with NO TIMELINE ATTACHED. Many are IF statements, like in a spreadsheet. IF this, then that. IF all the ice melts, then 66 meters sea level rise. Not WHEN! When = 5000 years. See the difference? So when some denier friends of mine just blindly assert “You guys said we’d all be underwater by now!” I just shake my head and wonder if their getting their ‘science’ from Kevin Kostner’s “Waterworld!”

> Now I have looked at and critiqued your links, are you finally prepared to look at mine?
You have HARDLY touched on them!

Do you accept that peer-reviewed climate science happily admits there are OTHER forcings, like wobbles in the Earth’s orbit and tilt (Milankovitch cycles) that also impact on our climate? Do you accept that the science says sunlight changes only explains 60% of the temperature change, and that the other 40% feedback is from CO2? And that, all things being equal, you get the same result when WE are releasing the CO2?

Do you accept that Milankovitch cycles predict we should be cooling and have a glacial period in 3500AD? If that’s the case, what other forcing is making us hotter?
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Do you accept that the science says “that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes."
ANCIENT climate changes. Look at the ANCIENT graph. This statement is about what happens over MILLIONS of years, not every small temperature fluctuation across a mere 1000-year period. IPCC reports cover many shorter timeframe forcings from solar cycles to El Nino cycles.

But there were some fast, nasty super-greenhouse events in earth’s history that warn us really bad things can happen if CO2 gets too high — it’s the stuff of nightmares! Did you say this link failed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQloUVD88h4

Your first video is so full of Denialist tropes (some of which I’ve met before) that it will take weeks to unpack.

Oh MHAZE,
>And on this piece of statistical rubbish, you think we should up-end western civilisation.
No, I think we should IMPROVE it by building cleaner cheaper non-polluting energy sources that don't 'indirectly tax' our health system with all those coal and gas and oil related cancer deaths. Nuclear can do it, easy.

By the way, you just a summary of the climate work of every National Academy of Science on this planet "Rubbish". Good job! Way to respect science! ;-)

>Heh, Max. Between -420 and +1480. We've come a long way from exactly 565gt haven't we?
Don't misquote me. Originally I said I wished we wouldn't burn any more coal, that 2 degrees was too much, and Bill McKibben said it was "worse odds than Russian roulette." It's not MY fault YOU can't be bothered getting acquainted with the sources you attack.

Now the IPCC has moved it to 1.5 degrees. NASA was right. The PROBABILITY (that word keeps coming up!) was right skewed after all.

No matter how much you bitch that they 'haven't done the math', they have and the message is clear.

At the MOST we have 24 years, or we could already be too late.
Better clean up our act ASAP!

Now, after you've got your panties all in a knot and made a stupid fool of yourself denying there was any 'probability' in the Climate Sensitivity models, etc, do you REALLY think I'm going to discuss peak oil with you? I've published magazine articles on peak oil and lead groups that have briefed politicians. I'm just not going to discuss it with a petty little pissant that congratulates himself on shallow semantic games. "No probability" my arse! Go teach grandma how to suck eggs.