Ok, maybe you weren’t angry, but you sure are condescending.

I can’t agree to your logic in many places. This statement is invalid: “the argument is that if CO2 is a bad thing for the climate, it is always a bad thing for the climate, and if we ever observe the opposite, then its variation at the same time bad things happens is coincidental, not causal.” Effects of any phenomenon could be multi-directional as you increase concentrations, but more importantly, NON-LINEAR. We could see little effect of increased carbon up to a point, then enormous impacts with systematic failures (e.g., the Great Barrier reef and all coral systems). On LCOE, take it up with Lazard since you seem to think you know more.

But since I know you’re indefatigable and will not stop, how about I just declare you the winner. I’ll admit that it is possible, whether falsifiable or not, that you have figured out something about the scientific method, as it applies to climate science, that every major scientific body/association in the world has not. But you should admit that you might be radically wrong about this.

Adviser, author, speaker on how businesses can (profitably) solve the world's mega-challenges. Author: The Big Pivot & Green to Gold http://www.andrewwinston.com

Adviser, author, speaker on how businesses can (profitably) solve the world's mega-challenges. Author: The Big Pivot & Green to Gold http://www.andrewwinston.com