Yes, coal prices rising are typically good for both producers and shareholders!
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?
This question is as important as the current price of coal, as it talks to either an immediate suppression, or a the long term trend.
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 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.
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.
To date, while I maintain an open mind, but have yet to find any such prediction and therefore, causation.
How do you reconcile this scientific inconsistency?
Expand
(20min delay)