Your analysis makes the assumption that climate response will be linear and proportional to the quantity of CO2.

Hansen has said that this linear response cannot be assumed and that a non-linear, abrupt sequence of climate change is much more likely.

The fairly recent discovery of accelerating glacial ablation is evidence for a non-linear response.

If we follow your logic we are placing a bet that climate response to CO2 is linear and we therefore can go ahead and burn all the CC and NG available to us.

This is not science; it is betting. The stakes are very high. You may wish to ask your children if they wish to assume the risks to which you appear willing to subject them.

I agree that the uncertainties arund climate change are an excellent justification for reducing emissions sooner rather than later. I did just want to point out that the growth rate in emissions is part of reason climate change is accelerating. Emissions from fossil fuels grew from 6.5 GtC/y in 1999 to 7.2 GtC in 2005.

Your analysis makes the assumption that climate response will be linear and proportional to the quantity of CO2

Key point. In fact the two are related by various feedback mechanisms, some negative, some positive, appears to be net positive (oceans, permafrost ...). At least historically T leads CO2 out of recent ice ages, though CO2 probably leads T out of massive glaciations.

Also, that 90 Gt C in NG is only true for economically recoverable sources. If we decide to tap methane hydrates (or otherwise release them, by say, warming at least the shallow water reserves) the whole game changes.