Det anser jag inte att man gör genom att satsa på tillväxt. Med tillväxt följer nya och renare teknologier.

Klart att klimatmötet är ett spel för gallerierna då det långt ifrån är bevisat att vi ens har något problem med vårt klimat.

While you have been discussing, I have put in some Global Energy system data into Chalmers Climate Calculator, which is easy to find on the net. My input was the carbon dioxide from available fossile fuel according to Global Energy System presentation to the Swedish Parliament. The other input I made was no further deforestation. The result is that the maximum atmospheric CO2 up to 2100 will be 470 ppm. If we assume IPCC´s present climate sensitivity, namely 3 C per doubling of CO2 concentration, the result is a temperature increase of 2.3 C. If we assume a 50 % higher climate sensitivity, which ccpo has proposed, the temperature increase will be 2.9 C.

The IPCC reports should be openly available for everyone to read and nicely summarize how the IPCC does their climate modelling.

If they do not include the feedbacks you want them to include is not interesting here. The IPCC have published what they have published and are not being just as planning material for the future, despite its flawed foundation.

Well, your conspiracy theories have little relevance here regardless of what one may think of the IPCC and their results… However, it does not change the fact that we state that their model results are wrong since they are based on flawed assumptions regarding future fossil fuel availability, which is the topic you have been trying to avoid over and over and over again now…

Wrong. Thank you for showing conclusively that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You likely believe the IPCC conducts science, too.

Also, I just posted a link to a peer-reviewed article earlier that explained that metane seepages are just as likely to just cause algal bloom (and be consumed in the process) as they are to reach the atmosphere and affect climate.

Your posting of blog articles is pointless when there are scientific material available. Why use poor second-hand interpretations instead of peer-reviewed material? Unless the peer-reviewed article are not telling the things you want them to tell…

The IPCC have already published their models, which are based on the unrealistic emission scenarios, so lets stick to them. Your preference for non-IPCC results are of little importance here, since it wont affect the fact that the IPCC models are wrong as we claim.

Also, we had a significant drop in global temperature 450 million years ago, despite >3000 ppm CO2. 300 million years ago we had CO2 levels comparable to todays level but 10 degress warmer global temperature. During the Cretaceous Period we had increasing temperature AND dropping CO2 levels. So cherry-picking of single events in history tells nothing except your uninterest in a serious discussion and preference for logical fallacies. Furthermore, why bother with paleoclimatic discussions when the key issue is Anthropogenic Global Warming and our criticism against the IPCC?

The IPCC climate models are published and they are also based on the assumption that future oil production will be 300 Mb/d.

Since their last assessment report there have been no new IPCC material published, so all your talk about new feedback processes and such is just purely speculative as it remains to be seen whether the IPCC will include them or not. Stick to the published material so we can talk about the same thing, instead of referring to some non-UN reports. Also your preaching about speculative future climate models that might appear in the is irrelevant here. Remember that we criticize the emission scenarios and not the climate model.

If you are going to be taken serious you must at least have the decency to stick to the topic and not avoid the key issue or my counterarguments.