Bazz, let me give you an example, as I think the problem is you're being too reductionist in your thinking.
The objective is to reduce the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
Now, one way to do that is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel burning, which is consistent with your thinking.
But we could also achieve a substantial improvement by, for example, all becoming vegetarians, thus vastly reducing methane emmissions from livestock.
Now, that's not going to happen, but it is possible that people might eat less meat and so achieve some reduction this way.
That would then immediately create a disconnect between the amount of fossill fuel left to consume and the overall projected greenhouse levels.
The same with the use of alternatives, nuclear or more efficient engineering.
All of these factors will impact on atmospheric warming INDEPENDENT of fossil fuel
availability and/or use.
Hence my point that there is not a one to one correlation between fossil fuel availability, or even use, and greenhouse gas levels.
That's not to say that fossil fuel use isn't a critical factor. It is. But availablity, i.e. reserves, is only a critical factor if we say absolutely that all available fossil fuel will be consumed at a predictable rate.
In fact, we can say neither.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony said;
That's not to say that fossil fuel use isn't a critical factor.

OK, then why is it not important if incorrect fossil fuel values
are used in the IPCC models ?

It is important, as are many other factors.
But, and this is accepted in all areas of science, economics, government, history, etc, all modelling is based on assumptions.
In your intial proposition, you treated the fossil fuel levels as absolutes in terms of their relationship to model outputs.
There would be some absolutes in the IPCC modelling, e.g. second of thermodynamics, but the relationship between fossil fuel availability, fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas levels would never be treated as absolutes.
Why? Because they're not imutable, as is the second law.
Hence you cannot discredit the model for that reason.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

We, almost every one marvel at what Science teachs us.
The recent landing on the planet Mars, is huge.
Yet on this subject we, some reject totally the views of MOST of the WORLDS science.
Conspiracy's exist, both sides run them on this issue.
Not the middle, both sides bring on the extremes.
But deniers lead in failing to see they are being lead.

Hi Belly,
You're right.
Sometimes I think we'll just have to change minds and hearts one person at a time.
But if that's what it takes, then so be it.
The planet is worth saving. And I have two granddaughters, 7 and 5. They make the fight worth fighting.
But we're winning. I give the debate over is it or isn't it real another year or two to run, max.
Then the debate will shift to the best strategy.
And at that point, we've won.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I agree Anthony we have won.
Just want to highlight SOME views we have faced, that this issue is an ALP one!,not international.
That so very many would sit and plan to lie, but only on the yes side!
That constant reports of the record heat/cold/rainfall/drought/ice melts are normal.
Enjoy! in just one more decade almost all of the world will have a price on carbon.
And the one after?
A likely trade ban on those who do not have one.
Best of all?
After initial fears renewable energy will be in place and we ALL will be happier with it.