by energy investor » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 21:35:47
Onlooker,
I agree entirely with your comments. I don't think my perspective is necessarily binary but it does influence my investment outlook.
Jef,
I also agree with your comments, save the twat bit of course...lol
What we do or don't do is unlikely to matter. Whether we understand or don't understand, what is, is.... irrespective.
Perhaps if more people had the time to go back to first principles and question what we are being told, there would be far more people agreeing with me - but perhaps not. The Northern cooling that started in 2015 in earnest is too short a period for any of us to detect a solid trend in it. That may come next year or the year after, or even the year after that.
But no we are told authoritatively that 97% of peer reviewed papers agreed with the AGW line, so we all accept it - that is until/unless we actually read the detail of that Australian study, or go back to working out that it was logical after the mini ice age for CO2 to have been so low as to be 280ppm. And it was logical for oceanic warming to release much more of that CO2 back into the atmosphere. But what then accounts for the extra 130ppm?
Who can be bothered doing all that study when the outcome is said to be "settled science". One thing I am certain of after monitoring the situation for 14 years, is that it ain't settled.
Everyone who has been marginalised in this debate by being called everything from sock puppet, twat, troll or in the pay of big oil or other mysterious forces etc., is probably watching to see what happens with the current cooling cycle and the IPCC mob are meantime desperately trying to establish in our minds why the Atlantic Conveyor could be slowed by melting ice. I was years ago told the Atlantic Conveyor slowed during the Mini Ice Age. If so, that certainly wasn't AGW.
But right now, for me, I back the sceptics...rather uncertainly, because I know so little and the cooling trend and approach of Grand Solar Minimum are so recent.
If you accept that the science is settled, you are welcome to destroy my arguments with hard data. If you haven't done the research and want to simply label me an idiot, please feel free. But just remember the insults validate my position and make yours look weak.
Coming back to the moot of this thread. I presently only see a main ice age as an existential threat, because the last one obviously was. We had no knowledge of humanity's history prior to that. The more we increase our population, the more people we will made susceptible to fires, droughts aquifer depletion, starvation and cold.