And no one is “assuming” that CO2 raises temperatures. This has been a well know science fact for over 200 years and it is easily demonstrated in the lab. Simple high-school physics.

“In terms of the global picture, assuming that OPEC will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is of course not good news from a global oil supply point of view.”

Monbiot: Around 2020. That casts the issue in quite a different light. Mr Birol’s date, if correct, gives us about 11 years to prepare.

~~~
This is the deception that forms the basis of Monbiot’s alarmist claims. He bases the crisis on a plateau of conventional oil production. The problem for Monbiot’s claim is that non-conventional oil, which includes even offshore production, is produced at an average cost of well under current spot oil prices. An adjustment to the era of mostly non-convential oil production can still be a cheaper price. Where’s the problem? “Prepare” for WHAT exactly? Can’t we survive if oil costs $35/barrel?

“a coherent group of general propositions and laws used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity. ”

Do you also doubt the theory of gravity?

I’m all for scientific debate and looking at contradictory evidence. When I come down hard on people here is because they either post idiotic comments or repeat fallacies that have already been debunked many times over. What else am I supposed to do? Clearly, if they keep repeating fallacies, they have no desire to learn anything. There is actually no solid contradictory evidence, only propaganda by energy industry sponsored PR folks, who keep repeating the same fallacies over and over even after they have been proved wrong, because people who are not equipped with high-school science will believe this constitutes a controversy.

But rather than doing what you accuse me of doing and taking a fascist view of my position, why don’t you present your evidence so we can discuss it? Surely, if you are so convinced that GW is some kind of worldwide conspiracy by the scientific community, you must have some pretty solid evidence to support your point of view?

Let’s see it and discuss it.

My concern, however is the fascist like response to anyone with a contrary opinion, or facts. Why can’t there be sceptics? isn’t scepticism a driver of science?, and if there are concerns and evidence contrary to the theory, why can’t it be explored?

Reminds me of a study where “scientific experts” predictions were matched with one’s of the “man-on-the-street”, and guess what, the experts lost by a huge margin. I will bet on the non-expert, seems scientists (also humans) are still too immature to be trusted.

You also have a very dim view of science. Scientists are looking at and studying naturally occurring cycles too, they understand them a heck of a lot better than you do, and they can separate them from this human-induced change, which is happening an order of magnitude faster than any natural cycle would predict. But you are obviously much smart than the thousands of scientists working on this problem.

You are also wrong about volcanoes. We can actually tell what percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made, because it has a different isotope signature than naturally occurring CO2. So we not only can calculate how many billions of tons we’re pumping out, but we alsi have a pretty darn good idea how much of it stays up there.

Couldn’t agree with you more.

However…the only long term solution is not presented here…

Human Culture is to blame – Culture in the Anthropological sense, all things about humanity that are not part of our physicality, but are indispensible for continued existence…

I include:
language
fire
technology of all types
Social Structure – (the “big man” was our god…and became god…different discussion)
Agriculture
Health Care
Art
Math
Writing

Just as natural species find new energy niches to exploit, and therefore new species are formed over time, human culture allowed us to overwhelm the natural boundaries on our species, and thereby move into new energy niches.

Humanity could not have “evovled” in the Arctic, yet, through our culture, we came to dominate that extreme climate just fine thanks.

We evolved (alongside our culture!), to ignore all natural limits, and take advantage of energy niches!

Currently we’re the only species IN THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE OF LIFE to have no governor on our procreation, and that’s what is overwhelming the natural systems…but, we are just doing what comes NATURALLY!!!

VOLUNTARY HUMAN EXTINCTION

The planet cannot withstand our presence.

If everyone, voluntarily, did all they could to minimize energy use (turning off lights, changing all lights to flourescents, hi-mileage vehicles, etc. etc. etc.) it would only decrease our usage by 20%.

That doesn’t consider India/China/Indonesia/Brasil/Mexico all increasing their use of electricity, having cars, etc. etc. etc.

Given our population trend, that isn’t buying us ANY time.

Human caused climate chaos is a better way to talk about “climate change”. It will be wetter/drier/colder/wetter selectively, but the ultimate effect will be bad, and the changes will occur far faster than any natural systems can cope with (normal climate changes occur within the range of evolutionary capabilities, but, here WE are!).

There is no moral justification for ANYONE on the planet to have children.

60,000 YEARS AGO THERE WERE ONLY 2000 INDIVIDUALS ON THE PLANET…DO THE MATH, NOTHING WE DO IS SUSTAINABLE OR LIKELY TO BE…THE DIE OFF IS INEVITABLE, AND, THEREFORE, TO REDUCE HUMAN SUFFERING (AND TO INCREASE THE PROBABILITY THAT OTHER LIFE WILL SURVIVE OUR PRESENCE), ALL OF US SHOULD VOLUNTARILY REFRAIN FROM HAVING OFFSPRING.

ALL OF US.

Sorry to hear about your mom. However, while it is true that some people are killed by chemotherapy, it remains a very useful therapy that helps the majority of people who receive it.

Second thing is that global warming is not about the USA as you seem to indicate. It is a global crisis and we’re all in it together. As for war, the price of oil and the economy, these are largely self-inflicted gifts from your beloved Bush the 2nd. The instability caused by your government in the Middle-East and the falling US dollar are largely responsible for the rise in oil prices. In turn, the rise in oil prices and the stupid run towards biofuels are largely responsible for the food crisis that is unfolding before us.

You also fail to recognize several facts related to global warming: it will make world poverty a lot worse as poor countries are by far the most affected, and this is already happening. It will increase food prices as droughts spread further. Conversely, reducing oil consumption would not only help with climate change but it would also help reduce the price of oil.

Finally, investing in conservation and green energy would be a big boon to the economy. It’s just plain common sense: you save energy, you save money! You reduce pollution, you save money! And the USA is missing a huge opportunity to gain the upper hand in new green industries and technologies. Meanwhile countries like Germany and some Scandinavian countries are creating thousands of jobs, saving money, and creating entire new markets and industries while the USA keeps catering to the oil and coal industry.

The sad part is that for a fraction of the cost of your illegal and completely unnecessary war that has destroyed Iraq and is ruining your own country, a fraction of that cost would have enabled the USA to completely ween itself off of middle-eastern oil while creating lots of jobs and improving the environment.

The cost of doing nothing about climate change will be far greater than the cost of weening ourselves off of oil. And 50 years from now the problems caused by climate change will be so bad that the current problems will seem trivial.

Which one of these is the most important to focus on? Whoever is right or wrong about climate change, niether can definitively prove their point, or prove definitively that we can in fact do something to slow our climate change down. Or, I also believe that it can’t be proved that paying for a solution to these percieved problems will be better than the problem itself. My mother went through Chemotherapy for cancer, the Chemo ended up killing her. I think that focusing on more immediate threats for us may prevent our own focus on healing the planet from killing us.

In light of other global crises at this point, I think we are much better off to put off our differences about climate change and focus on problems that we know we can solve today. I believe that the cost will be too great to shift more political focus on the climate over our current economic state and it’s effect on the rest of the world. Sure, let’s revisit it, but not now. We didn’t react immediately to threats of global cooling either, and we’re still alive to talk about it.

The climate is changing, it will affect our lives. We may be able to have an impact on it and we may not – but we sure as hell can do something about hunger, and economics today.

How about it?