More from Al Fin

From this post:

Whether we are truly headed into an extended duration ice age (lasting for decades at least) or not, it is not a bad idea to consider our options, just in case.

Remember: if the sun does decide to take it easy for a while, we will need to burn more fuel to stay warm. And since our capacity to grow biomass for electricity and fuel will be diminished during a period of weaker sun, we will have to look elsewhere for our sustaining heat and energy. Unless westerners get cracking, building new fission reactor power plants, we will no doubt have to burn more coal. A lot more coal.

The interesting thing to me about Archibald's predictions for an ice age beginning within the decade, is that he is putting his predictions boldly within the near future--where they can be refuted by reality. Contrast that boldness with the weasels at the IPCC, NASA Goddard, etc. who place their catastrophes well into the future. There is no fudging Archibald's theories. If they are wrong, we will soon know it. The CAGW orthodox tautology, on the other hand, can be used to explain virtually any climate whatsoever--short of a genuine ice age.