The Daily Mail, having recently published an interview with Nigel Lawson, which attempts to convince its sentient readership that Peak Oil is nonsense http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2244822/Thought-running-fossil-fuels-New-technology-means-Britain-U-S-tap-undreamed-reserves-gas-oil.html is now embarked on a mission to alert us to the news that Global Warming is yet another myth http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html. I published a rebuttal to the DM's Peak Oil coverage, in which I emphasised that it is not a matter entirely of how large the reserve (let alone resource!) might be, that will determine the instance and timing of a production peak - of oil, gas, coal or indeed any other finite commodity - http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Peak-Oil-is-Nonsense-...-Because-Theres-Enough-Gas-to-Last-250-Years.html, but rather the rate at which the material can be extracted, according to prevailing physical, geological, economic and technical determinants.
I concluded the article with the line "He's obviously forgotten about climate change", but whatever Lord Lawson's recollections are, the Daily Mail is compelled to the view that anthropogenically-driven global warming is a phantom. Having done some basic sums on the subject, with a German colleague Alexander Koewius http://www.koewius.de/Website/Climate_Change.html, which show that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly CO2, are expected to elevate the mean global temperature considerably, I find such assertions less than convincing. Rather as resources are all too frequently confused with reserves, to make a case that there is plenty of "oil" to be had, but which in any case say nothing about actually getting it out of the ground - i.e. reserves are static reckonings, while production is a dynamic process - any apparent "flatness" of the recent climate temperature record (if it is real http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/01/10/global-warming-is-not-at-a-standstill-despite-ignorant-claims-in-uk-press/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming) ignores the difference between trend and variation. A lovely illustration of this is of a man walking a dog on a beach. If you watch the dog, he meanders all over the place (variation), but in fact is heading in a define direction, according to his master's wishes (trend) http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend_and_variation.html. As the elements prevail upon us over the longer term, trend is climate, while weather is variation.
Through the latter link http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend_and_variation.html is a video clip which shows that straight lines can be "fitted" which imply an absence of warming over different periods, and yet the overall trend is to a higher mean global temperature. If indeed it were to prove the case that the Earth has stopped warming, then the question arises of "where is the excess thermal energy going?" It has been suggested that some of this is being stored in the deep oceans https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/5364/deep-oceans-can-mask-global-warming-decade-long-periods, and if this is so, when it resurfaces, we are likely to be in deep trouble indeed, through the forcing of complex and interwoven mechanisms of the Earth System. i.e. We are likely be hotter, (wetter or dryer, depending on location and sea-level proximity), and hungrier than we thought. Will the variations oscillate with greater amplitude, or run out of control?... we simply will not know the outcome of this, the greatest geo-engineering experiment in human history, until it is concluded, but the consequences of burning all the carbon we can get our hands on are unlikely to be favourable http://math.350.org/.