Dear Bazz,

No need for the high dudgeon mate. You floated a position which was fine. I looked at it, found it lacking as a reason to disregard the IPCC forecasts since the data set being used has since been invalidated by real world figures, I invited you to find another position, you refused, yet you have decided we are the ones holding rigid views?

Not a chance.

Of course available hydrocarbons for humans to burn will be a limiting factor on the extent of global warming. 

And of course over the long term the planet itself is not threatened by GW, and life will go on existing on this planet for millions of years plus there will more than likely be species that will thrive under the new conditions. But the modeling and recent data indicate much of the human species is likely to be in a measurably less hospitable and rapidly changing environment in the future due to our increasing emissions of CO2.

In other words we are quite determinately sh#ting in our own nest. 

It is a far more comfortable to be in the skeptics and deniers corner but at some stage you do have to accept the increasing rigidity of much of the science on this.

Dear SPQR,

You land in here, flap your gums a bit, then say 'I will see you after school'. Why did you bother? If you have something just spit it out.

Or were you merely being facetious?
Anthony,
I'm actually a kind of cullee as I have chosen to limit as to how many more humans are to live on this planet by only having one child by choice. I wouldn't have minded two but definitely not more. Being a stepfather as well makes up for that.
I'm not advocating we cull actual humans, I'm advocating restraint in the numbers we produce. The benefits for all life would very quickly become obvious once the numbers start to recede.
The better off should direct their compassion to those who are willing to take steps to help themselves by voluntary child birth reduction. Baby bonuses should be paid for no more than two children. I for one find it ludicrous that all the aid that is given is used to produce even more children that require being kept alive by others who show self restraint.
Climat change will not stop by fewer humans but it certainly will make for a better & cleaner planet for all to exist on. That idiotic tax will only compound the problem.

Fair enough, Individual.
I'm probably not a million miles from your position, but there are days...
There are a couple of clowns I see on the train quite often, that I could cheerfully cull.
Although my motivation would be considerably less honorable than yours.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

Csteel said;
data set being used has since been invalidated by real world figures,

Incorrect, it has NOT been invalidated.
I suspect that you are quoting different data.
I suspect you were quoting oil production which has had an all liquids
increase by about 2 mbd.
However crude is steady around 73 mbd. (last I looked).
In any case, peak coal is expected about 2025 by most but some say it
will peak this year or in the next two or three,
Before you go jumping up and down, I am referring to world peak, which
is what really counts.

All hydrocarbons will peak about the time oil depletion sets in.
This because oil is such a significant portion of the whole.
The upshot of it all is that we are a few years, one way or the other,
to a depletion that will outweigh any campaigns on co2 reduction.

This is so fundamental that I cannot see why it is being ignored.
It means that all these "green" campaigns are pointless.
By 2050 oil will be of such price that we will not be burning it
anyway, but keeping it for plastics, fertiliser and the like.

So there is no need for panic on AGW.

Bazz,
I don't pretend to know or understand the data as well as you, but doesn't your argument ignore coal?
And isn't coal burning a bigger contributer than oil to CO2 emmissions?
Also, if cars change to electric and we still use coal fired power stations as a primary source of electricity, and given the vast coal global reserves, won't we simply be replacing oil sourced emmissions with coal sourced emmissions?
I'm not arguing for any of these implications, just asking.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

No Anthony, if coal fired reasonably efficient power stations are
the source, as far as I have been able to dig out, then the co2
emissions are 60 to 75 percent of emissions from an equivalent IC car.
The more alternative power that is used that percentage falls.
As most charging will take place at say 10pm to 5am then it may
improve the efficiency of the power stations and that would help.
Very complicated isn't it.