I will repeat what I have said a few times previously.
There is not enough economically available fossil fuels to cause the
warming that the models predict.

Regarding oil. Crude oil production peaked in 2005.
Since then the old technique of fracking has been improved and the
(mainly) US has filled the gap. However that is now starting to look
dodgy as the companies involved are facing minute profits making the
financiers on Wall Street uneasy.
Profits are indeed rare. "Sweet spots" are not repeated in adjacent areas.
Areas outside the US have not attracted much interest.
The Coober Peady project did not go ahead.

Coal, except Australia, is facing declining reserves and increasing costs.
Australia has exchanged the sheep's back for coal mining.

It is going to take a genius to negotiate the future.
The problem is not global warming but energy.

Bazz I know you are brighter than that
In one post you take on the science community
And a great deal of the world
Based on what research, evidence?
As we age we can, if our eyes are open, and our mind, see much damage done in just our lifetime
Just maybe finding some thing we have not had a negative impact on is the hard task

Hello Belly,
I read the science of global warming, that which I understand anyway.
However it is not really the point. The AGW priests are right when
they say coal is finished, but they say it for the wrong reasons.

I get a near daily Oil Price Bulletin in which several recent articles
have talked about the predicament of tight oil companies.
They have never had good profits and they have been described as a Ponzi scheme.
A good well lasts three years at a few hundred barrels, maybe a
thousand barrels a day.
You may have noticed that BHP among others have got out of that business.
Many countries that have been mining coal on large scales, such as
China and US have been closing mines as the return on their production
has fallen. Coal has just become uncompetitive in their markets.
Japan of course is finished with coal. That is why we sell coal to
China, India and Japan.

The world energy system is different to the Global Warming system
and operates in disregard to AGW.

I put the following on the COP24 thread. No replies yet.
I thought the somewhat different people here may be able to enlighten me.

Craig Kelly MHR said on TV that the government 26% or the Labour's 45%
reductions on CO2 has to apply to agriculture and transport as well.
That so far it has only been considered with electricity generation.
Does it really mean that cattle herds have to be reduced by 45% and
sheep herds by 45% also ?
If so we could eat our way through those numbers.
The farmers will have to cut their diesel machine use by 45% also.
However that still leaves people. Do we have to cull the people stocks
by 45% or 26% if Labour loses the election ?
A thought, the animal rights people will claim it is discrimination
if we do not apply it to the human herd as well !

These reductions apply to railways, interstate trucks, local delivery
trucks and your and my cars. Our electricity also ?
I have heard Craig Kelly say the above several times and no one has
denied it. I think, but not sure, that he said it in parliament also.

When I pointed out to Belly that, while he was decrying the claims of hoax and conspiracy vis a vis AGW, he was the only one using those terms, he responded with...well I'm not sure what.But it had nothing to do with my observation.

On the other hand, I'm beginning to wonder if Belly is a parody account. He wrote "you do not have the ability, any ability, to think or talk clearly". Surely that has to be irony. No one can be that extrospective.

Oh, good to see there are some Peak Crude Oilers about. Although in the past they were Peak Oilers, up until they got smacked around the head by reality.

The trouble with all these predictions is that they fail to take account of advancements. They always assume that nothing will change and that, therefore, we'll run out of this or that. But we never, ever do.

We've been told we'd run out of coal since the 1880s. Back in 1930 we were told we'd run out of oil in 10 years. Carter said we'd run out by 2000 and Fraser imposed taxes to try to prolong our supplies.

But all those predictions were wrong. And they're still wrong. Because we keep finding more oil and coal and we keep finding new ways to get at it.

BP recently calculated that, given known reserves and current usage, we've got enough coal for another 184 yrs.

Back in 1980 based on usage at that time and recoverable reserves at that time, we had about 80 years of reserves. Since then, usage has increased by 61% but known recoverable reserves have increase much faster and we now have 120 yrs of supplies.

Its hard to believe people still fall for this.

"There is not enough economically available fossil fuels to cause the warming that the models predict."

Well I'd like to see the calculations on that. CO2 levels are currently around 410ppm up from 280ppm in 1850. The IPCC's RCP4.5 model predicts a CO2 level of around 560ppm by 2100AD.
Can you show me how much fossil fuel needs to be burned to get there (560ppm) and why we don't have that much said fuel?