What is this?
"A couple of months ago, New Scientist had an article estimating 50-80 years total known reserves and less than 20 before we hit peak production, with no-one willing to gamble on finding new reserves..."
The New Scientist? Citing a once-reputable magazine which has turned into a Greenpeace house mag? For a comment on this estimate from the British Geological Society, see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526140.700-uranium-reserves.html
"@ "then I don't believe the whole CO2 scam". Bloody big gamble that one. I'm personally skeptical (about everything), but if you're wrong then we're all toast."
Umm. I have looked at the theory of AGW. Oddly, it's not a proven hypothesis. It goes like this:
1 - The CO2 concentration has been going up.
2 - The average temperature of the world has been going up
3 - If the two are related, it might be that the CO2 (which 'absorbs' sunlight), is causing a bit of warming which causes more water vapour to form in a runaway feedback. Note that there are several ifs there.
4 - We can model this proposal on a computer, and if we pick the right figures, we can get the model to match the earlier warming.
5 - So the world is in peril unless we lower the CO2
Normally, a scientific hypothesis remains theoretical until it has actually made predictions which can be tested. Oddly, this hasn't happened with AGW. No predictions have been formally made and tested at all. Various phenomena, such as a stratospheric 'hot spot' are implied by AGW, but these have not been found to exist in reality. When increased CO2 and temperature are found in ice core data, the temperature always comes before the increased CO2. When this contary datais produced, odd mathematical fudges are produced to explain the lack of corroborating evidence away. Occasionally, people with embarrassing counter evidence are denied the opportunity to print. Appeals are made to 'concensus' and 'authority', but no one is proposing or funding investigations which are designed to prove or diprove the hypothesis.
There are now sets of embarrassing data, indicating, for instance, that the Earth is no longer warming up. Oddly, no one pays attention to these...
So, no, I don't think it's a gamble to reject this hypothesis. If I'm wrong then we might live in a Mediterranean climate, but there is no AGW proof, just assertion in the face of ever more negative evidence. I am being asked to drink the Kool-Aid and then jump on a passing comet....