Can you validate the "wasted lots of research time" assertion?  As I understand it there is a huge amount of work in developing a computerised climate model, but once built you can plug in all sorts of scenarios, likely or unlikely to see what impact they would have on climate variables.  Indeed sensitivity  analysis to various factors is just that - plugging in a huge number of values for any given variable to see if you can identify tipping points or other multiplier effects.

I would expect research institutes to be doing this on an ongoing basis - adjusting their models when - e.g. India - adjusts its estimates for coal deposits - and I would expect the outputs/predictions to change over time.  This does not invalidate the science - this is how the science is done.

AS I understand it earlier estimates have proved unduly optimistic and later predictions are more alarming in terms of the pace of climate change.  If anything the predictions are more alarming as the data and the models improve.

notes from no w here

This is nonsense, Starvid. The IPCC has not fooled the public simply because it is not proccupied with the notion of peak hydrocarbons. They model BAU development scenarios which the VAST MAJORITY of the world accepts. I happen to agree with you that the majority is incorrect, luckily for us.

But to accuse them, and Climate Science, of engaging in some kind of deception, as you appear to be doing, is just plain wrong.

As for "wasted huge amounts of research effort and money"....oh, please. On the scale of redeveloping entire economies, the amount spent on climate science and modelling, does not even register.

Then, too, fossil fuels account for 57% of GHG, sez the article. That other 43% is enough to cook our goose, just a little more slowly. Especially as its absolute magnitude is likely to increase.

Peak Oil is important. It is not the only important thing.