Ok, well I don't have time to look into the OPEC thing that so I'll concede the possibility of somewhere between 0 and 100% on that one.
I repeat my assumption however, that OPEC's predictions are probably based on the world deciding to ignore the science and keep the ship steered directly at catastrophe. This is of course entirely possible given the successful constant undermining of conservative, peer reviewed science by people such as yourself. There are powerful vested interests that have a lot to lose here, and they have done a brilliant job of muddying the waters... using many of the exact tactics that the tobacco companies used none the less... but when even News Ltd finally believes it, surely you must be beginning to wonder...?
I would therefore guess, or rather hope, that the IEA's predictions are closer to the mark.
So, what we have here is the consensus opinion of the several hundred premier authorities in the physics and chemistry of climate science, supported by their teams of scientists and research infrastructure and drawing on the collective analysis of decades of research and accumulated knowledge. After exhaustively examining all of the possible alternatives that there is, they have determined that effectively there is NO chance that climate change isn't almost entirely caused by humans, and that, unmitigated, it presents catastrophic danger to life on earth.
Why, why, why would any reasonable person think these Professors and heads of the relevant CSIRO, NASA etc etc departments utterly wrong?
If so, then surely you believe all scientists are wrong. If not why not? They all more or less use the same methods using the same physics and chemistry...
I'm sure there is variance on the figure of 12 years at current levels of emissions before irreversible tipping points are reached, but that figure was chosen because it is in the middle of the variance. It could be more or less. Whatever it is, it is clear that urgent and decisive action is required now. That is why the IEA has said that NO new oil, gas or coal should be developed.
Regarding third world countries, there is a lot more that solar panels everywhere can do, if seed capital is allocated. This will become even more likely with time given continued falling costs and improving battery technology.
Nevertheless, I concede that there are short, and maybe medium term costs. The problem is however, that many developing countries are situated in regions of the planet that will be most severely affected by climate change, if they aren't already. The incidence of catastrophic weather events has gone up in an ever steepening curve since the 1950s, and the steepening is continuing alarmingly.
For instance between 1950 and now, the annual incidence of the following events have increased as follows:
Floods have gone up from about 100 a year to about 3000,
Droughts have increased from about 190 a year to 505,
Wildfires have increased by about 55 to 370,
Extreme Temperature events have increased by about 15 to 465.
Source: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)
So I really don't think that overall the argument you're doing the developing world a favour holds true.
The other thing I think people have to think about is this:
It's widely recognized that Glasgow is the worlds last chance to avoid disaster.
If action is not taken, do you honestly think that the worlds youth will stand by and watch selfish old men destroy their, and their childrens future? These same men that have enjoyed unprecedented generational wealth that will be denied their grandchildren, partly based on their use of fossil fuels? If the world decided to destroy their children and grandchildren's future, I think you can expect to see protest on an unprecedented scale. They will destroy the joint in anger and so they should. Vietnam protest will be nothing to this, as the stakes are massively higher.
We are entering the most crucial time in the Earth's history. I pray the decisions taken are wise.
Expand
(20min delay)