Thanks Chris for the extra bits. Can you dwell a bit mo on the following bits:

I heartily applaud Jeremy Leggett for comparing "our" understanding of fossil fuel reserves with that of the IPCC and showing the IPCC numbers most likely in error on the high side.

Which numbers? The oil, gas or coal reserve numbers they are using?

Just to make sure: the real data from the field on warming & ice melting on poles is happening faster than their worst case scenario (latest IPCC high scenario 2007).

Leggett's conclusion that it is all about coal is exactly right and where the climate change debate needs to focus in my opinion. This is the same conclusion reached by NASA's Dr James Hansen earlier this year in his pape

Very good point! A lot of people have been trying to hammer this point home elsewhere.

However, to make sure I understand where you stand.

This (burning the rest of the oil) is "no problem" IF and ONLY IF:

- we do not increase emissions significantly from ANY other resources (yes, coal is the most abundant, but there are other potential emissions sources too)

- we do not see the rapid depletion of oil as a problem by itself (cf. Oil Depletion Protocol)

That is, using the rest of the oil (rapidly) might be a problem for us, regardless of climate change AND considering our voracious energy appetite, we are going to be using lots of other emitting primary sources other than "all of oil" too.