Belly said I said;
Bazz chants his theme the sky is falling we are out of fossil fuels, not mate even close.

No I did not, nothing like it !
Read it again.
I did not say AGW was not real.
I did not say AGW was real.

I said the IPCC has not used the latest Uppsala Uni info on the amount
of fossil fuels available to burn.
As the amount is less than the IPCC uses in its computer models, then
the result has to be less temperature rise than their projections.

Thats all, nothing complicated about that.
However it does mean that the discussions here are pointless. GIGO !

Bazz,
You keep trotting out that nonsensical line.
You would only have a point if there was a one -to-one relationship between the amount of fossil fuel available and the extent of AGW, unaffected by other dependent and independent variables.
Clearly, that's a nonsense.
It's one of those things that sounds reasonable if one doesn't think about it.
One did.
So please, give it a rest. It's too silly to persist with.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

How is it that the Antartic ice both at sea and on land contines to grow? We do not know the Artic sea ice patterns of growth and decline because we have not the long term records.Ocean currents change quickly and yes when the warm ones predominate,ice melts.

To say that man's very small increase in CO2 is the primary cause is drawing a wery long bow.

Errr Anthony, are you saying that the amount of fossil fuels burnt
does not matter ?

Ummmm, hmmmm, well that puts an entirely different spin on it all.

You said;
You would only have a point if there was a one -to-one relationship
between the amount of fossil fuel available and the extent of AGW,
unaffected by other dependent and independent variables.

Well yes I agree it is not a one to one relationship, it is in fact
logarithmic, so each increase in co2 has less effect than the previous same increase.
I just don't see how you can argue that the amount of fuel burnt has
no relevance. After all isn't that what the AGW programs are about ?

Bazz,
You're trying a Reductio ad Absurdum argument.
No, I didn't say it didn't matter. I said there isn't a one to one relationship, and that there are independent and dependent variables (actually, there are a huge number of them), that are in play.
Unless you can quantify both sets of variables and their impact, remembering that these variables can have different impacts depending on each variable's model value, both relative and absolute, then you cannot infer much about how any two of the variables will interact.
Basic statistics.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

OK, then why are we worrying about co2, oil, coal etc ?