> There is plenty of historic evidence of positive feedback - insolation changes alone are not sufficient to account for past changes in climate -
Not necessarily. Could just mean that actual drivers are misunderstood and/or intentionally buried. A particularly good example of the latter would be the Svensmark theories, which the CAGW alarmists refuse to engage with but just keep constantly being corroborated, why here's one that went public just the other day:
> Its 'stability' has encompassed a very broad range of conditions, many of which would be very uncomfortable for human civilisation as we know it.
Most notably, Ice Ages. Which only started when C02 dropped below 500ppm or so; so let's get the concentration up that high at least, THEN we can talk about whether pushing it up more might be a good idea or what.
> Let's turn things around. We know that there *are* feedbacks - they are irrefutable from basic physical arguments. Are you saying that it just happens that these all balance each other out?
I don't pretend to that much insight. I'm only interested in climate voodoo^H^H^H^H^H^H science enough to have an opinion whether the state of current knowledge merits me packing my bags for Iqualit and start building beach condos in the Arctic Archipelago, or whether Haida Gwa'ii would be an appropriate choice, or staying here in Vancouver will work out fine. Which looks like the best bet so far.