Target $18.72, page-6511

Lets see how the coal price goes this week.

"I think the real challenge is trying to understand how the "world according to the Greens" (not scientists) will affect the emotion of the buyer. It certainly was interesting to note that, despite being constantly reassured that Liddell would have no impact on energy pricing (seriously? who would believe that?), once it closed, the impact was immediate and material. I wonder if the science of emotion will overcome the science of money?"

Oh totally agree. You'll notice I don't refer to politicians, or news articles or crap like that because it almost always is unscientific. Al Gore and the likes often spout total nonsense which doesn't help anyone. I've mentioned quite a few times that coal will be with us for a while yet.

"Thank you for addressing those questions. As you say, there are many peer reviewed papers that indicate that AGW is real. To that end, however, there seems to be raging debate about how much impact humans are having. For me, the reason this is important is, if there is an increase, and it is material, we need to do something, immediately.

If there is an increase, and it is not material, is there any action we need to take? And if that is the question, then what is considered "material" and why?"

There are many peer reviewed papers that show a link between Carbon Dioxide and its warming properties. There are also many peer reviewed papers which show warming has accelerated in the last 70 years or so, despite one of the solar cycles being in decline (see below)



Again, agree with your points. However, I don't know if there is a raging debate about how much impact humans are having - perhaps in the media, but I don't think its raging in the peer reviewed literature. I'm sure there are small disagreements/debates etc.

"There are two incredibly unscientific phrases that grate on me - (1) "the science is settled" and (2) "scientific consensus". They are simply unscientific at their core, and it is frustrating that it is used as a bludgeon to quash any potential debate on the subject."

Again, I agree with you. I don't think I've used the term "the science is settled" and if I have, its probably been used in examples such as "The science is settled that the sun emits short wave radiation which bounces off the earth and turns to long wave radiation". Which, if I may, I think is essentially settled. Same view with scientific consensus - science isn't a consensus, science is based on evidence.

"For me, the most important part of science is its predictability. It allows us to understand the validity of any hypothesis.

The real challenge I have with the question of materiality is the lack of accurate predictability. It demonstrates a lack of causal effect - like we're missing something.

As you would know, retrospective identification of causation is invalid. Until an outcome, that is outside acceptable normal bounds, is accurately predicted, and then the root cause of that prediction can be strongly demonstrated to be the result of an act (which can therefore be repeated) there is no causation, only supposition. For AGW causation, that act would need to be related to the variability of CO2 based on measurable human behaviour.""

I think there is quite a bit of accurate predictability.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378 (Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections)
Shows that quite a lot of models and predictions were accurate.
Should you not wish to read the whole thing, just read the conclusion
"In general, past climate model projections evaluated in this analysis were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST warming in the years after publication. While some models showed too much warming and a few showed too little, most models examined showed warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between projected and observationally informed estimates of forcing were taken into account. We find no evidence that the climate models evaluated in this paper have systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over their projection period. The projection skill of the 1970s models is particularly impressive given the limited observational evidence of warming at the time"

So I guess I don't accept your premise that there is an inconsistency. I am not saying all projections/models are accurate - There are lots of complex processes occurring.

Thanks for respectfully engaging by the way.

Cheers,