Attention codgers! Get with the program!

I wouldn’t have believed this if I hadn’t read it for myself. This is an actual study and press release from the University of York.  I’m surprised they didn’t issue this press release IN ALL UPPER CASE. Those darn whippersnappers.

From old codger net - click

New rules of engagement for older people and climate change

A new study by researchers in the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) at the University of York calls for better engagement of older people on climate change issues.

The report, prepared in partnership with the Community Service Volunteers’ Retired and Senior Volunteer Programme (RSVP), urges the scrapping of stereotypes which suggest that older people are incapable of engagement, passive or disinterested in climate change.

Instead, the research team recommends new approaches to engage older people, which promote direct interaction and the use of trusted agents that are sensitive to the personal circumstances older people face. The report sets out a ten-point plan to engage older people more effectively on climate change issues and greener living.

Gary Haq

Recent evidence from the older age sector highlight the inadequacies of current methods of information provision and community engagement on climate change

Dr Gary Haq

The report claims that a combination of climate change and an ageing population will have wide ranging socio-economic and environmental impacts. It acknowledges that older people may be physically, financially and emotionally less able to cope with the effects of climate-related weather events.

Lead author Dr Gary Haq, a human ecologist at SEI, said: “The engagement and participation of older people in climate change issues are important as older people can be seen as potential contributors to, and casualties of, climate change as well as potential campaigners to tackle the problem.”

‘Baby boomers’ (aged 50-64) currently have the highest carbon footprint in the UK compared with other age groups. They represent the first generation of the consumer society entering old age.  As they will move to older groups they will replace low carbon footprint habits and values with relatively high consumption.

Dr Haq said: “Recent evidence from the older age sector highlight the inadequacies of current methods of information provision and community engagement on climate change. It is critical to implementing policies to tackle climate change and to address the needs of an ageing population.”

Dave Brown, co-author and member of RSVP, said: “While older people are concerned about climate change, they do not feel they will be directly affected. Nor do they feel they can personally take action to stop it. The older generation represent a missing voice and a missed opportunity.”

Notes to editors:

  • The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) is a global science policy research institute headquartered in Stockholm and with its UK office based in the Environment Department at the University of York. Its mission is to bridge the gap between science and policy to achieve change for a sustainable future.
  • More about the University of York’s Environment Department can be found on www.york.ac.uk/environment/
  • According to the Government’s Actuary Department, by 2050 people aged over 50 will represent 30 per cent of the UK population compared to 2006.
  • SEI’s updated calculations show that baby boomers (aged 50-64)  have one of the highest carbon footprints (13.5 tonnes/CO2) in the UK compared other age groups Seniors (aged 65-70) have a carbon footprint of 12. 5 tonnes/CO2 while Elders (aged 70+) have a footprint of equal to the UK average of 12 tonnes.
  • As the ‘baby boomers’ move into the older groups they will replace low carbon footprint habits and values with relatively high consumption habits. This “replacement effect” is crucially important and identifies the need for a much clearer targeted effort on climate change and consumption aimed at this demographic group.
  • The ten-point plan for engagement of older people in climate change issues:
    1. Abandon old stereotypes
    2. Get to know your target audience
    3. Use trusted brands
    4. Use peer to peer communication
    5. Use positive messages
    6. Use the right “frames”
    7. Show real life examples
    8. Develop an inclusive dialogue
    9. Maximise participation
    10. Ensure the setting is right for change
Advertisements

270 thoughts on “Attention codgers! Get with the program!

  1. Well… Speaking as an “old codger” with a Doctorate in Physics I’m damned if I’ll let myself be patronised by that shower of wa[snip]rs!

  2. It’s known as ‘frightening the vulnerable’.
    Get them on side via a good dose of fearmongering and that’s another section of the public to manipulate in support of the struggle for power.
    I don’t usually get political but it’s straight out of the Marxist Handbook.

  3. Well – as an ‘old codger’ (67 going on 27) – I feel thoroughly chastised that I am not toeing the party line on climate change. I must make amends.
    On second thoughts – the Stockholm Institute can stuff their ‘message’ where the sun don’t shine…

  4. This quote is spot on, “It acknowledges that older people may be physically, financially and emotionally less able to cope with the effects of climate-related weather events.” I wonder how many old people on fixed incomes had heart attacks when they saw their energy bills had increased to pay for renewable energy during a cold winter.

  5. Older people are not concerned with climate change. They laugh at young plebs who believe it is a problem.

  6. I’m a baby boomer by that definition. I’m an AGW sceptic but I recycle so much that my non-recyclable waste bin usually only goes out fortnightly despite our council having weekly collections. I grow my own beans and tomatoes and am a member of Freecycle. I also use my bus pass for local journeys. I’m looking into feedback tariffs for electricity (I disapprove of the green “taxes” paying for it but by buying in to the scam I should be able to mitigate the effect on my household). I do, however, fly to Majorca twice or three times a year so that probably condemns me in the eyes of the righteous watermelons. How much were they paid to produce that report and who paid for it?

  7. This is beyond condesending to the elderly. The authors should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps the authors feel oldsters are all senile and unable to think for themselves. PERHAPS someone should tell the authors whose toil built their generation.
    Sincerely… younger, not necessarily wiser, Jeff

  8. Only inexperienced youngsters, fooled by post normal science professors, among them not our grandchildren, will more probably believe their lies.
    Anyway, the third world will surely have to save those suffering such an strange mental disorder affecting the morally declining first world.

  9. What these twits do not realise is that before they know what happened they will be old codgers themselves. See how you like it then. It comes faster than you think, life is short.

  10. This study raises so many questions.
    If these wasteful seniors were left on ice floes to die at a certain age how much would that help, or would it merely promote the quicker loss of precious sea ice?
    Do people looking for research topics and grants to finance them have no shame?
    Who finances this junk?
    Has this paper been considered for publication by the Journal of Irreproducible Results?
    Isn’t this just an example of the mischief that arises when you swallow a wholly unbelievable premise (CAGW) ?
    Is there a difference between a senior’s carbon footprint and his carbon wheelchair track?
    Could I have a grant to study these questions to build up my publication credentials?
    Speaking of publication credentials, did anyone ever find out yet what number Mann used in his nomination of Phil Jones?
    If not, why not?

  11. Hmph…….
    These patronizing little twits want to engage with me? I’ll engage ’em with a couple significant digits — one on my right hand and one on the left. You know — the ones that are always getting pixelated on broadcast TV.

  12. There is a saying which reads as follows:
    The devil knows more for being older than for being a devil
    So we know who you are droggies!

  13. Perhaps the new engagement plan includes how to explain to seniors why all of their energy costs (heating, lighting, transportation, etc.) are eating away at more and more of their limited income and life savings? And why they have to throw out all of their perfectly function lighting fixtures and replace them with expensive fluorescent lights? And how all of the new “eco” taxes and fees are critical, even if it means that seniors will no longer be able to afford to keep the homes they have lived in for decades? Oh wait, I get it: Force them out of their big “footprint” family homes and into small footprint, high-density old-age facilities where their “needs” will be met, within an environmentally sensitive framework, of course.

  14. Can the world get any barmier? How many more of these insane articles are we going to see?
    Must admit, when I saw ‘Stockholm’, my first thought was ‘Stockholm syndrome’ and they were going to kidnap all us old codgers and keep us captive until will fell in love with all their eco-claptrap.
    And what about that 10 point plan; a series of pointless points; for instance, what ‘real life examples’ do they have in mind; I’d love to see some, actually.
    And just what is a ‘social ecologist’?

  15. Perhaps Saga ( for our colonial friends – a 50yr old + only holiday firm in the UK that arranges holidays/vacations) can start up a line of poley bear camp-out holidays for the baby boomers to stop them spending their offspring’s inheritances.

  16. As an Old Codger, I find this laughable, especially “Use peer to peer communication.” Most of my conversations with my peers go like this:
    “Watcha say?”
    “What?”
    “If I had a nickel for ever what!”
    “What?”

  17. Well I think that I qualify as one of those older people.
    I’m not a biologist; but I have watched those wildlife movies where a younger, up and coming male lion, comes into a pride of lions, and challenges the worn out old geezer, and either kills him, or drives him off to perhaps an even worse fate. All the lionesses in the pride, of course have no interest in romance, since they all have young cubs to raise.
    Not for long ! As soon as the new master disposes of his rival, he hunts down, and methodically kills all of the cubs in the pride; all of which carry the genes of the recently departed or defunct old geezer; then he chases out as many of the male juveniles as he can so his new harem doesn’t have to feed them too.
    No sooner are the cubs slaughtered, and the ladies suddenly want to play with the new stud, who hopes that it will be his genes that pass on to the next generation.
    Humans aren’t quite that ruthless; well maybe the men aren’t; the women might be; they have even more invested in their children; and they can get downright mean, if their little rug rats are threatened; and eventually it is the grand rugrats, that occupy their attention.
    Now you want to ‘splain that again, where the old geezers don’t really give a hoot about the climate, since it isn’t going to affect them.
    We invest more in our coming generations, than any other species; well not discounting salmon and the like, which give their all.
    And we hope that we are able to launch the kids into a better world than we inherited; with better lives and opportunities.
    So forget this dungbeetle food about us geezers not giving a hoot; we’ve given more hoot to this subject than anybody else.
    But nobody is ladling out grant money to write papers about our concerns and efforts.

  18. “The Ten-Point Plan for Engagement of Older People in Climate Change Issues:
    1. Abandon old stereotypes: Think as slow as they do!
    2. Get to know your target audience: Live as they do!
    3. Use trusted brands: The old inexpensive kind no one else buys!
    4. Use peer to peer communication: Get a younger one to interpret for you!
    5. Use positive messages: Tell them their Rx and Utility bills will decrease!
    6. Use the right “frames”: Walmart has some inexpensive ones, the thicker the better!
    7. Show real life examples: Look around their home for needed repairs!
    8. Develop an inclusive dialogue: Learn ‘Old’ English! And, remember, most are deaf!
    9. Maximise participation: Play Bingo, let them win!
    10. Ensure the setting is right for change: Most are in bed and wide awake at 3:00 AM!

  19. According to the Government’s Actuary Department, by 2050 people aged over 50 will represent 30 per cent of the UK population compared to 2006.
    UK population?, Are you talking about that obscure province of the EU where its population disappeared during the Landscheidt minimum because they couldn’t make it with all those crazy windmills?

  20. Leon B @ 9:58…. Dude you rock! In the 90’s the Canadian government tried to deindex pensions from cost of living increases. Never was such a wuppin given to government…. don’t mess with pensioners!!!!!
    Again…. sincerely…. Jeff

  21. Older people have much more highly developed B.S. Detectors, and were educated back when the scientific method meant something.
    We don’t take kindly to patronising B.S. By wet behind the ears pip-squeaks.

  22. Many of the Baby Boomers I know will be quite happy to engage with these people in a forceful, direct and unmistakable way.
    Short traditional Anglo-Saxon phrases ending in ‘off’ will likely be used to bring auditory confirmation of their physical expressions.

  23. “Old folks” like myself have been around long enough to remember that summers were always hot, droughts, floods hurricanes and tornadoes always occurred. Younger people who were raised on The Simpsons and Marijuana are much more susceptible to suggestion.
    The frequency of stupidity events does seem to have increased with CO2.

  24. I sent the following to Dr Haq:
    Dear Sir,
    If you really did write this:
    Recent evidence from the older age sector highlight the inadequacies of current methods of information provision and community engagement on climate change
    I propose a minor change:
    Recent evidence from the older age sector highlight the inadequacies of current methods to manipulate them with respect to climate change
    Regards
    Jean Bosseler

  25. There was a time, long, long ago, where young people used to respect their elders…..so history tells when dealing with the sudden and terrible disapperance of the then so proud Occidental Civilization.

  26. Old codgers around here have choice words for “Global Warming” and red-flashing eyes to match.
    Picture the recent commercial with the “Drill Sargeant” asking if they’d like to take a trip to Namby-Pamby Land to retrieve thier self-confidence. That would be the old codger as the Drill Sargeant.

  27. When I was a boy, i wanted to be a human ecologist when I grew up but didn’t get the grades so had to settle for b*llsh*t sniffer. Came in handy though!

  28. At first (since I’m still thinking about the the birth to death ratios) I thought this report was about the old people getting with the program and doing the “Soylent Green” thing where the old people went to these clinics to be put to sleep forever.
    I’m a six years behind the baby-boomer generation, but I know a bunch of people that fall into that age bracket and I know these people are a lot smarter than the fools who did this study. If I were in Sweden I’d be asking for a refund of the taxes that where spent on this study.

  29. The ‘SEI’ is managed by mr. Johan Rockström and who’s that? Well, the closest is to compare J.R. with mr. J. Romm and they are identical in all but looks, although not far from there either…
    //TJ

  30. Not very good at basic sums, these morons.
    “by 2050 people aged over 50 will represent 30 per cent of the UK population compared to 2006”
    a. there in only one statistic above, so what’s being compared?
    b. the people “over 50 by 2050” are currently those “over 10” – so basically just educate everyone, forget the nonsense about the current aged peeps.
    Perhaps the researchers don’t include themselves in the problem, in which case they are currently aged under 10. Which explains a lot.

  31. “the inadequacies of current methods of information”
    I can count on one hand the news and media sources that have not promoted global warming.
    They have had complete control of the news and media for decades.
    Their 10 point plan reads like some brain washing manifesto

  32. “Dr Haq said: “Recent evidence from the older age sector highlight the inadequacies of current methods of information provision and community engagement on climate change. It is critical to implementing policies to tackle climate change and to address the needs of an ageing population.””
    Huh? In other words, us older folks need special attention in the brainwashing process? Presumptious!

  33. lol – do they really want to try social engineering on baby boomers? Man are they in for a major wake-up.

  34. I am not in the least surprised by this research study from Sweden. A couple of years ago I was in Stockholm with my wife visiting the Nobel Museum when the young guide told our tour group that Al Gore had been fast tracked to receive the Nobel Peace Prize as normally it can take upto 20 years. He had also told us that some recipients of prizes had been later found to be unworthy; upon which I said ‘If anyone was unworthy of a prize, Peace or otherwise it would be Al Gore.’ I shall not forget in a hurry the look of sheer speechless amazement on the young man’s face, what I had said was tantamount to blasphemy in Canterbury cathedral or St Peter’s in Rome. My wife stepped in to inform the startled lecturer that I was an engineer and did not believe in (A) global warming. I was 70 this year.

  35. I think most older people will just laugh at the message. My grandparents grew up in The Great Depression and are still kickin’ it, well mostly. They just laugh when ever someone brings up the topic.

  36. It would have been soooooooo much funnier if the professor’s name had been spelled with a C-K rather than a Q.
    Anyone watch Heidi Cullen pump her book on Colbert last night? I don’t think Colbert’s a believer… “re-frighten me!”
    http://www.colbertnation.com/home

  37. Youth is wasted on the young. And the young often do not do what they are told. Which is why spanking was invented.

  38. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as
    is now evident from observations of increases in
    global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread
    melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea
    level. The dominant factor in the warming of the climate
    in the industrial era is the increasing concentration of
    various greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere.
    From: http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/towards-zero-carbon-vision-uk-transport-2010.pdf
    So, they are fully signed up there.
    This is the world they envision:
    ‘By 2050 all urban and rural areas will have significantly
    enhanced public transport and cycling facilities
    bringing high quality and low-cost transport choices
    within everyone’s reach. Those who opt not to use a
    car will save thousands of pounds a year by avoiding
    the fixed and variable costs of car ownership and use,
    and will also avoid the uncertainties and potential
    disruption of oil price shocks as the world adjusts
    to shortages of supply and increased demand from
    developing countries. Individuals and families will
    have much improved air quality, reduced noise and
    stress from traffic and much improved community life
    stimulated by reduced levels of motorised traffic and
    reduced traffic on streets and through villages.’
    One problem, 70,000,000 people ( speaking of the UK here) have to be fed, warmed and be offered more than just cycling around on a warm spring day.
    This is pure ‘rural’ romanticism. Pastoralism for the jaded city middle class.
    But ‘Human Ecology’ has no time for ‘reductionism’ and prefers to present itself as ‘aesthetic science’.
    It all lacks rigour. It is ‘post modern’ science. ie nonscience.

  39. Wow…guess the political re-education camps will need wheelchair access ramps.
    Ever notice that with these green zealots, and others of their ilk, whenever their message isn’t being accepted, or facts interfere with it, they never reexamine their beliefs and think that they might be wrong? No, it’s “we need to refocus our message” and “communicate more effectively” and “stop people from confusing people with skeptical facts” and such. This truly qualifies as religious belief, not science, it doesn’t even rise to the level of pseudoscience, it’s a religion.
    There are “old” people around who remember the dust bowl and high temps of the 30’s, and have seen enough weather weirdness to know the Chicken Little proclamations of the alarmists are bunk. Interesting isn’t it that the old Farmer’s Almanac folks do a better job of predicting the weather/climate and the severity of winters than the MET or such?

  40. Old folks are less inclined to fall for climo-nuts and enviro-wackos, they’ve heard it all before, been there done that, can’t believe the kid who’s talking is serious, and think the old ones were always nuts and never very balanced. Besides, when you’re pinching pennies and don’t think you’re going to be around much longer anyway, who wants to carry a picket sign or hurt your fingers any more making phone calls–that’s stupid.

  41. By the time today’s thirty-forty something come to be sixties +, they will pay for their youthful transgressions by facing the coldest weather of their lifetime !

  42. Hey now, not all of us “whipper snappers” are dumb and listen to everything the media says. I am 29 going on 65 I guess….
    Thing about media and getting people involved with “current events” as all these press releases want to do:
    It had to opposite effect on me. When I was in third grade we had to find a story in the newspaper and write a paper on what the author was trying to say. Being me, I chose an editorial and proceeded to rip apart the argument. Teacher was mad at me and said that was not the point of the assignment…I stopped reading the newspaper because of that and only read the comics after that. Haven’t read an actual newspaper since then….
    But shrug, some of us youngsters have been reading press releases for awhile and taking them with just a grain of salt so to speak. I always found the comics the most enlightening part of the newspaper especially farside and Calvin and Hobbes as a kid. Then dilbert…but I digress.
    Point is, these stupid projects always have more negative effect, its like the old saying, the more you push people into doing something, the more they will resist (or come out on the other side of the argument..), reminds me of the star wars quote I quoted the other day….

  43. “SEI’s updated calculations show that baby boomers (aged 50-64) have one of the highest carbon footprints (13.5 tonnes/CO2) in the UK compared other age groups Seniors (aged 65-70) have a carbon footprint of 12. 5 tonnes/CO2 while Elders (aged 70+) have a footprint of equal to the UK average of 12 tonnes.
    As the ‘baby boomers’ move into the older groups they will replace low carbon footprint habits and values with relatively high consumption habits.”
    Or maybe the 50-64 year olds have jobs and are doing lots of things that creates a larger foot print and as they age and retire their footprint naturally drops because they don’t drive to work every day and various other changes in lifestyle.
    In fact based on the SEI carbon footprint numbers by age group, I think any logical person would conclude that typically as one ages ones carbon footprint decreases. I would like to see what data these ‘scientists’ have that indicates that baby boomers will maintain their current high footprint as they age.
    I just miss the baby boomer labels as I am only 48, but I do have a foot print I will show to the SEI’s rear end.

  44. Not until they pull this Jack Nicklaus “Response” Putter from my cold dead hands!
    First of all the) had a 10 point plan. Anyone who has done marketing knows you don’t go over 9.
    Next thing, just reported in Ireland, more elderly and poor die from winters than summers.
    The report here is based on man-made global warming and may be funded by such peers.
    We are heading into 30 years of global cooling. I would like to see them explain climate change to a bunch of stiffs at the rest home whom didn’t get enough heat to survive the colder winters.
    Paul

  45. Perhaps the authors could undertake to abide by their own prescription:
    A: Abandon old stereotypes.
    I’m over 70, got an MA 14 years ago and a PhD ten years ago.
    I know how to put a woolly jumper on and I’ll put my plastic bottles out if I feel like it.
    Go away, you irritating researchers and leave me alone.

  46. This carbon footprint relation with age has no relationship with knowledge of climate change and it’s possible effects. It is related to simple economics and use or missuse of energy. Boomers tend to waste more energy because they can afford it. Retirees have less money to waste and get more frugal with age. As a 78 year old retired environmental scientist that did research for EPA for over 20 years, I believe the younger generation needs to listen to their elders as to the truth with respect to causes of climate change and it’s effects.

  47. If you read the piece again but substitute the word “lifestyle” for “climate” you get the real, sinister picture: lifestyle change (whether you like it or not, ultimately).
    These clowns are pushing a hairshirt existence in the manner of 17th century Puritans.

  48. Does one wonder why there is so little advertising money spent on the elderly? Maybe it is because, as a whole, they’re more skeptical and a little less gullible than the younger generations. Maybe they just don’t buy this AGW crisis. Maybe they’re right!

  49. And just what is a ‘social ecologist’?

    You have to break it up. “social” = a group of socialists
    e- = electronic (they have their favorite social media)
    co-log = they look at tree ring proxies and predict the future
    -ist = let’s pretend this is a science so people won’t realize it’s a religion.

  50. Why aren’t the older generations flocking to support the hoped-for
    rage against the carbon machine ?
    Well.. it’s been the medium, not the message.
    The warmistas will always blame someone else for their
    message not “selling”.

  51. Time for the Optimum Population Trust to roll out the “foregone” offset plan…
    “A non-existent person has no environmental footprint: the emissions “saving” is instant and total. Given an 80-year lifespan and annual per capita emissions (2006) of 9.3 tonnes of CO2 (Defra, 2007, provisional), each Briton “foregone” – each addition to the population that does not take place – saves 744 tonnes of CO2, equivalent in emissions to 620 return flights from London to New York (1.2 tonnes of CO2 each).”
    http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/will-new-warnings-lead-to

  52. They will do with this what they did with AARP, with professional journals, with all major newspapers, TV networks and similar media outlets, and with most professional societies: leverage an officer’s position [preferably the president] into being the spokesman for the entire organization. This is the same method they successfully used to hijack the APS, the RS, the Economist, Scientific American, Science, Nature, etc.
    The rules are set up so the rank-and-file have no real say in anything, and they have no way to communicate with the rest of the membership. Their only job is to pay dues.
    Dr Gary Haq [who appears to be under 40] is setting up this new organization putatively representing older folks. Dr Haq is being disingenuous. This is just one more example of how a minority [those selling the CO2=CAGW conjecture] has gamed the system for its own personal financial benefit, at the expense of everyone else. And it’s all based on junk science.

  53. A couple of reasons older people don’t buy the propaganda:
    1) They’ve seen enough [socialist|hysteric] propaganda in their lifetime to recognize it when they see/hear it
    2) They’ve seen enough climate cycles to recognize that it is indeed cyclical.

  54. I don’t know about Europe but around here they had best be able to move fast lest they be shot for trying to rob us old people.

  55. ” Alexej Buergin says:
    August 25, 2010 at 6:32 am
    In France, where knowing how to live is an art, they call it “savoir vivre”:
    —- If you think somebody is a complete idiot, go out of your way to be extremely polite to him —-”
    Dr. Haq is one of those gentlemen and scholars I feel an absolute need to be extremely polite to, very, very, polite.

  56. I’ll just tell them what the old folks told me when I was an irresponsible kid. “Get off my grass you dirty little rug ape! I’m callin’ the cops on ya!”

  57. Like Pogo, I’m another “old codger” with a Doctorate in Physics and I’m damned if I’ll let myself be patronised by that shower of wa[snip]rs!

  58. I can only hope that such a twit shows up at my door, so I can introduce his Marxist backside to my Capitalist boot.

  59. Rip off seniors. Send an inspector to an energy audit at their small house for 800 dollars. Then have your cousin give them a special deal on weatherizing for 5800 dollars. Of course the fine print will be a lien on your house and a loan.

  60. Dr Haq is right I am old and I don’t engage with climate change, as I don’t engage with every other “the end of the world is nigh!” cult that has come along. I have seen all these scares before, the Y2K bug, SARS, Swine Flu, Bird Flu, the vanishing ozone layer, deforestation, overpopulation, but strangely we are all still here
    I just hope for warmer weather, but never get any in UK.

  61. “new approaches to engage older people,”
    That Swede seems to have trouble with the concept of comparisons. Older than what? The average Swede? Old than the Mean Swede? Older than a Swede born yesterday? And why are these people in York, anyway? Did they get run out of Sweden?
    Of course, it probably refers to people who remember a time before Political Correctness and the clear grammar of what they meant to say, which was simply “old people.” And apparently that starts at 50.
    I’m going to reach 60 in a couple months – can I become a curmudgeon then? A few people here probably think I am already.
    Gary Haq? That doesn’t sound very Swedish. He doesn’t look very Swedish. His bio says:

    Gary has worked with the media to engage the public in discussion and debate of climate change issues and ethical living. He is involved in exploring different methods of communicating green issues and fostering attitudinal and behavioural change, especially with regard to personal travel.

    Oh, I bet he wants me to slow down and drive my age too. And smile at people who want me to drive faster.

  62. Dang, I will have to remember that the next time this social security eligible old coot with two artificial knees climbs up his 2 story ladder to work on his solar power installation. Patronizing bunch of aholes. They couldn’t tell a lepton from a leprechaun or a meson from a mess on. Thank you, but the PhD from MIT in EE for doing vertical temperature profile retrievals of the earth’s atmosphere combined with reading more books in a week than these morons do in a year entitles me to the simple statement: “please take it and rotate it along its axis so that its greatest length is normal to the entrance of your anus and cram it.”

  63. Patronising [snip] – hint – 4 letters, first one is c…
    I’m 58 – in case he gives a [snip] – hint -4 letters, first one is s…
    And, right now, I’m not far from York…

  64. It’s more like the younger people who want to take other people’s money and control every aspect of their lives have trouble with UNDERSTANDING climate change (aka global warming.
    The younger people are unwilling to (or incapable of) understanding that climate is not driven by man’s activities. So, now they want to pretend that climate change is a burden on older people. They should think for a moment about the fact that older people have seen the climate change UP AND DOWN quite a bit during their lives and might know that everything’s a phase (or cycle), just like the stupid developmental phase these younger whiners and bedwetters went through while they were supposedly growing up.
    They appear to assume older people are stupid, while the reverse is more likely the case.

  65. This guy misunderstands the nature of energy use and prosperity. Baby Boomers might be the highest users of CO2 at the moment but that’s only because they’re the generation with the most disposable income. I’m younger than the baby boomers but I’ll bet I used more energy as a child and then a teenager and as a young adult than the boomers before me. Similarly, today’s kids and teenagers and young adults use more than I did. As the music goes “the only way is up, baaaby”.
    If he wants to cut future CO2 he needs to try and prize all those electronic toys out of the hands of babies. Good luck with that.

  66. It’s probably not a good idea to patronise us babyboomers. We grew up in the shadows of such luminaries as Einstein, Bohr, Turing and von Braun. Engineering and scientific endeavour inspired us; we watched as Sputnik circled the earth followed by Gagarin and others in orbit and then Armstrong and others on the moon. Concorde was an aircraft that brought the outcome of these disciplines together into a thing of beauty. The science supporting those achievements led to today’s computers and electronic systems amongst other developments. And we babyboomers did (and in many cases are still doing) our bit.
    However, the least inspirational science today is ‘climate science’, which coincidentally appears to be the least transparent, the least believable and allegedly the most prone to data tampering. Climate scientists do not inspire, they create fear and confusion and cause the scientific community at large to be undeservedly disrespected. From what I have read the scientific method also appears to be surplus to requirements in this particular field.
    The babyboomers are probably the last group (as far as the UK is concerned) to have been given a strong and rounded education. We were taught to read (even without pictures), calculate (we’ve probably all heard of and/or suffered from Newton’s fluxions, Napier’s Bones and Fourier and Laplace transforms). But most importantly most of us were taught to reason. Consequently being able to weigh the evidence presented in a debate we can appreciate and even enjoy, a good argument. However we can also smell bovine excreta, bad science and self-delusion from a mile.
    So please you scientists of the ‘post modern’ variety keep your global warming propaganda to yourselves and leave the babyboomers to get on with their lives.

  67. Perhaps “community engagement” and “missed opportunities” are buzz words for “financial contribution.” I recommend the social engineering route. Maybe they can commission some Nigerians to encourage contributions to the cause. Just be sure the Nigerians aren’t doing this in Nigeria since it is a violation of section 419 of the Nigerian penal code.

  68. From what I’ve read, radical environmentalists have encouraged the aged to kill themselves to save the planet. Since the eco-fascists haven’t had enough luck with that, I guess now they’re trying to propagandize the elderly.

  69. I bet this doesn’t have anything what so ever with the fact that the majority of the wealth, and “oddly” enough the wealthy people, are retarde, err retired.
    Equal that importance to the fact that the old farts who went lazy, err retired folks, are like a third of the amount of voters. So I bet they’re’n’t an important group at all, wink wink nudge nudge.
    And people wonder why the consumption of alcohol has gone way up? People living at 95 still driving cars like there’s no tomorrow, just like the evil young spawns who think they can outrun me! Uhm, right, where was I. Haven’t they seen old folks drink? Or do they just not remember it the day after? :p

  70. Yeah, and I forgot that my wife who is older than I am still works at MIT processing Voyager data along with data from some of the other things we have out there. There is one professor that “retired” years ago, but still shows up to teach a class pro bono and engage in research. Maybe its time for the codgers to teach the young squirts that they don’t know very much when it comes to anything. My name is from Middle Egyptian. I decided to teach myself to read it when about 60. I would have to refresh a bit, but I did get to the point where I could read “The Book of the Dead” in its original form. [Its actually really called the book of going out by day. The most famous one is the papyrus of Ani.]

  71. Funny, every generation thinks they are smarter than….
    and every older generation has been there, done it to death, and got the T-shirt….
    Does anything really change?

  72. “The engagement and participation of older people in climate change issues are important… as potential campaigners to tackle the problem.”
    Or perhaps if they actually listen to older people they will find that there have always been colder, hotter, wetter, dryer years and decades and that there is nothing unusual going on today.

  73. Dr. Haq talks about us old codgers not getting enough information, but what he is really referring to is propaganda. What truly frosts me is his arrogance. We old-timers have been around long enough to experience the cyclical nature of climate.

  74. How condescending! If you happen to be a skeptic, then you must be an older person or has the same backward mindset and need to be re-educated.

  75. The premise of going after the baby boomers and i am one, Is that the boomers vote as most of the younger generation do not. That is what i take from this! It makes sense if you think about it.Thier message has mainly been to the young and where it once worked they have found it lacking in coming through for them[the warmist]. So going after the ones who do most of the voting is the logical thing to do. But as most on this thread have said they ars under estimating the boomers!!

  76. George E. Smith says: “I’m not a biologist; but I have watched those wildlife movies where a younger, up and coming male lion, comes into a pride of lions, and challenges the worn out old geezer, and either kills him, or drives him off to perhaps an even worse fate. All the lionesses in the pride, of course have no interest in romance, since they all have young cubs to raise.”
    An amazing story from when I was a young adult in California, was Frasier the Lion. He was an elderly, nearly toothless male lion, who had been purchased by the Lion Country Safari in Irvine in February of 1971. They were simply giving him a place to die. His tongue dangled out one side of his mouth, and he had trouble walking. A special vitamin mixture was used to dose him.
    However, there seemed to be something special about Frasier. Something that only the female lionesses seemed to sense. The employees started noticing that two lionesses would always be there when Frasier wanted to walk around, one on each side to steady him. Then they noticed that, when the young male lions didn’t like Frasier hanging around with the lionesses, that the lionesses were the ones chasing off the young male lions. Furthermore, Frasier appeared to have enough energy to start mating with the lionesses, and before his death in June of 1972, he had sired 35 cubs.
    Older men in Southern California started asking Lion Country what sort of vitamin mixture they were giving Frasier. I never found out if that information was available.
    This “survival of the fittest” is just hogwash. It is “survival of the luckiest”. Most of us baby-boomers are not here because we were the best. We just happened to not get killed when we went through our motorcycle phase, or we inherited the right genetics to not have a heart attack yet, or a stroke. Most of us are not physically fit, we don’t eat according to some stupid pyramid, and we have bad habits. Playing World of Warcraft all night isn’t a good idea, but many of us do that, too.
    We have gone through decades of “the end is near”, with a new apocalypse-of-the-month trying to frighten us. We don’t frighten easily, anymore. We don’t suffer fools gladly. And some of us invented the computers that these youngsters are playing their climate games on. We know what computers are good for (mostly playing video games, doing taxes, and sending email to grandkids), and they are NOT good for predicting the future.

  77. Being one of the very oldest boomers (born Jan 1, 1946), I take this rather personally. Somebody needs a good a$$ whooping. I didn’t bust my butt all my life earning a living and paying rediculous tax rates so some central planning bureacrat could educate me on how I’d spend my retirement years. Damn right I’m going to have a big carbon foot print! It says “Harley-Davidson” on the tank. Get over it!

  78. Recommended reading for Dr Gary Haq: –
    How to Win Friends and Influence People
    This is Dale Carnegie’s summary of his book, from 1936
    Part One

    Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
    1. Don’t criticize, condemn or complain.
    2. Give honest and sincere appreciation.
    3. Arouse in the other person an eager want.
    Yo dude, 3 strikes! You’re out!
    And that’s just part one!
    http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html

  79. His CV –
    “Biography
    Dr Gary Haq is a Research Associate at SEI York where he undertakes research on ethical living, behavioural change and urban environment issues.
    Gary has worked with the media to engage the public in discussion and debate of climate change issues and ethical living. He is involved in exploring different methods of communicating green issues and fostering attitudinal and behavioural change, especially with regard to personal travel.
    Career
    He holds a Diploma in Economics, a PhD in Transport and Environment, an MSc in Environmental Impact Assessment and a BSc (Hons) in Human Ecology.”
    What a crock of green diarrhoea!
    Well – he’s certainly “empowered” this (68yr) old codger.
    After struggling with driving vision, I’ve just had two successful cataract ops and I’m celebrating by cashing in some investments and choosing a new car.
    Got all the brochures spread out tonight – ranging from sensible Toyota Pious to meatier fare.
    Dr Gary ” ethical living” Haq has just clinched it for me –
    It’s got to be the Porsche Cayenne Turbo!

  80. When you get older, and have actually experienced 50 years of weather, you have experienced three overlapping 30 year climate averages.
    These people make traction with young people that do not have a personal history or an understanding of recorded history, but with us older folks the line ‘it has never happened before’ or ‘it was xxx in the past’, just does not cut it.
    They may control the present, but they don’t control my past or the history I understand.
    It has all happened before, and will all happen again, with or without people.

  81. grayman says:
    August 26, 2010 at 11:38 am
    =================
    grayman, as you pointed out, they are in a catch 22 with this.
    Young kids believe it, but they don’t vote.
    Older people don’t believe it, but do vote.
    And by the time those young kids get around to voting, they are older, have seen it not “proven” for decades, gotten wise to all the lies, and they don’t believe it any more…

  82. Its simply called experience, older folks have had a chance to deal with car salesmen etc etc and ask questions…fool me once, fool me twice sort of thing..

  83. *shakes cane at all the youngin’ whippersnapper researchers*
    You wet-behind-the-ears chitlins couldn’t see the forest for the trees if a bristlecone pine branch jumped up and slapped you in the side of the head !

  84. They have a major communication problem with seniors, the fact that they lived and remember weather as it was not as the IPCC would like it to have been…

  85. Do not under-estimate the likes of Gary Haq. Clearly many here are attuned to and easily recognize the propaganda and lies that emanate from watermelons like Gary Haq. However, many older citizens may not be as aware. Their life circumstances makes them more easily manipulated. For example, guess who is targeted by all those offers of valuable prizes for a few bucks that come through the mail from Nigeria, Canada, US, etc. I know my Dad was conned by these things to the tune of thousands of pounds and he had been pretty astute in his day.
    In the US, AARP has a lot of political clout because it appears to protect the rights of the elderly. It is now largely an arm of the Democrats and has willingly embraced programs which will dramatically reduce the freedom of choice for its members.
    Sure it is condescending – but so is all watermelon inspired propaganda. It does not lessen its potential for influencing the political process.

  86. Ric Werme says: “. . . why are these people in York, anyway? Did they get run out of Sweden?”
    Dude; the Stockholm Environment is not the environment produced by Sweden, it’s the environment that produces the syndrome of the same name.

  87. Dr Gary Haq is a human ecologist, not a “social” ecologist. And just what that is becomes clear if you read his offal paper.

  88. Dave Brown, co-author and member of RSVP, said: “While older people are concerned about climate change, they do not feel they will be directly affected. Nor do they feel they can personally take action to stop it. The older generation represent a missing voice and a missed opportunity.” (emphasis mine)
    The geezer gang doesn’t “feel” they can stop climate change. They have the horse sense to know that they can’t stop the climate from changing. Their voice isn’t missing. It’s being ignored.

  89. What outrageous hubris!
    Speaking as a “boomer” occupying the younger end of the spectrum I am not so far gone in my dotage that I haven’t observed winters have become increasingly harsh over the last few years. Many boomers at the higher end of the spectrum are very vulnerable financially and tend to die from hypothermia if they can’t afford to heat their homes – an increasing problem thanks to skyrocketing bills courtesy of “green” taxes spurred on by mealy-mouthed warmist academics and grasping, political morons.
    I believe I speak for many when I suggest that Dr Haq and the SEI can stuff their rules of engagement up their collective backsides and then go and [self snip] themselves. Sideways!

  90. But, but, … This is full of non-sequiturs. Where to start? A couple of letters have correctly pointed out that the (slightly) greater carbon wasters 50-64 do so because they are able. That they are physically, financially, and emotionally unable to deal with such issues (in the prime of their financial and intellectual abilities) is obviously false. That those entering this age group will become ill-behaved is not demonstrated. Concentrate on the young people who are more gullible to crusading hypothetical social issues. ….etc., etc., ……for 10 pages more. Better still, do something useful.
    Those who haven’t should follow the link to the U. of York environmental graduate program. Equally valid diplomas should be available in Cracker-Jack boxes.

  91. The muse inspired Ogden Nash:
    “In the pie-eyed world of prunes and prisms,
    It’s I for You and euphemisms.
    Hence the phrase I would eagerly jettison:
    ‘Senior Citizen’.
    …..”
    Sorry, no URL at hand for the rest of it.

  92. Nothing new here – its another young lot trying to teach granny how to suck eggs.
    Their ageist attitude shows clearly that they regard everybody with a bus pass as someone who hasn’t got more than two brain cells left, and needs to be told firmly, loudly (old people can’t hear so well, dear …) and clearly that they simply must believe what they’re told.
    What they forget is that our generation have actually been there, right after WWII, and that there is nothing they can teach us about ‘reducing’ our carbon footprint.
    I guess that ours was so much smaller, over our lifetime, than theirs will ever be – and that they’d be lost if they’d have to live even for a week in a cottage with no electricity, telephone, TV, cell phone, computer and car. Oh – and I bet none of them would know how to light a fire, either an open one or in a stove.
    If Dr Haq asks nicely, I might even be so kind and teach him …

  93. Sounds like the greenshirts will be opening up re-education camps soon. And they get government our money to do this to us?

  94. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 26, 2010 at 9:44 am (Edit)
    It’s known as ‘frightening the vulnerable’.
    Get them on side via a good dose of fearmongering and that’s another section of the public to manipulate in support of the struggle for power.
    I don’t usually get political but it’s straight out of the Marxist Handbook.

    Quite a lot of the baby boomers parents would have remembered voting the tories out at the earliest opportunity after the second world war.

  95. The answer? Soylent Green! Reduce the population, reduce human carbon emissions, reduce health industry spending, increase food security! The AGW Alarmists agenda is now clear!

  96. The older generation?
    They are slowly being replaced by a more wasteful younger generation.
    I remember spending hours removing nails from boards and straightening them for reuse.
    The shop is filled with boxes of sorted screws, nuts, bolts, washers, which have been ‘salvaged’ from items over the years.
    I remember my father teaching me how to carefully disassemble old structures or furnishings so the wood could be re-used.
    I will have to admit that electronics has changed. Some new stuff cannot out perform the old, but it is more efficient. In the shop is a vacuum tube tester. It sees little use these days. However, the oscilloscope, meters, sweep generator, etc have periodic use. Taking the time to troubleshoot and repair a circuit board is a skill that needs to be preserved and passed on.
    My mother’s toaster (metal not plastic) has been in use for over 50 years. She found a like model at a carport sale recently and bought it in case hers ever needed an element or spring replaced.
    My favorite electric hand drill was passed down to me from my father. It is, like the toaster, about 50 years old. The brushes and bearings have been replaced a couple of times.
    Shopping trips are a planned route reducing travel. Quantities are purchased, trips to the store are limited.
    One does not cook “a” casserole. Two are cooked making more efficient use of the oven. Left-overs are frequent.
    Mother’s bedroom set and her living room furniture are both about 60 years old. Buy good solid quality and keep it. Her dining table was over 50 years old when she and my father bought them… and that was over 60 years ago.
    She makes frequent use of the automatic clothes dryer. Clothes, once washed, are hung out on a clothesline and the sun automatically dries them.
    The older generation has seen times when things were as warm (or warmer) in the summer. They have seen cooler summers. They have seen warmer winters, they have seen cold winters. They have experienced times of drought and time of substantial rains.
    They have conserved, preserved, and wasted little as possible. The younger generation is going to teach them something?
    They have also seen their share of flim-flam men, snake-oil salesmen, and shell games. They will identify them in a heartbeat. They will not be deceived by changing the sales pitch. They also remember old codgers sitting around a barrel playing checkers. The conversation oft about what the next winter or summer would be like, what changes in the years rain or snow would they see. Danged if the projections, as modeled by the checked board code, were not quite accurate.
    To them GISS would be applied to: “That is GISS a pile of trash.”
    Amazing projection once again.

  97. Either you EFFECTIVELY get rid of these imbeciles or they will destroy the world. This is why sometimes the reason of force is needed, instead of the force of reason: They are dangerous people who, if kept alive, will destroy civilization. As you get rid of a tumor which menaces your life you gotto get rid of these idiots.

  98. Maybe retroactive birth control is needed to put these young [snip] where they belong.

  99. There is the fact that many seniors tend to be glued to the TV, where they have been brainwashed for decades. Same for the newspapers. In my experience, they tend to believe what’s fed to them as being truthful and the whole story.
    These people are indeed subject to initiatives like Haq’s.
    Do your friends a favor – make sure they have web access, and suggest WUWT and Instapundit. Tell them there are no commercial breaks!
    The rest will follow, if their minds are receptive to balanced discussion.

  100. I was intrigued by Gary’s shyness about his academic background – so I went looking:
    Gary Haq’s Education
    Open University
    Continuing Professional Development , Psychology , 2007 — 2008
    Open University
    Dip. Econ. , Economics , 2000 — 2002
    Lancaster University
    PhD , Geography (Transport & Environment) , 1991 — 1995
    University of College Wales, Aberystwyth
    MSc , Environmental Impact Assessment , 1990 — 1991
    Participated in a five month exchange programme at the Interfaculty Department for Environmental Sciences, University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands) as part of the MSc course.
    University of Wales, Aberystwyth
    MSc , Environmental Impact Assessment , 1990 — 1991
    The University of Huddersfield
    BSc (Hons) , Human Ecology , 1986 — 1990
    Readers in the UK will be able to provide more insight into the academic standing of these programs. In my day, Huddersfield did not have a University and today its 10 year average ranking is 90th out of 119 of British Universities. http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/univ07ten.pdf
    In fairness University of Wales at Aberystwyth is ranked 47.
    University of Lancaster is harder to rank because of the specialty area.
    Bottom line: Dr. Gary Haq is another example of a catastrophic over expansion of the British University system. It has created jobs for those who are essentially parasites – perhaps one of the few topics in human ecology worth examining.

  101. “The engagement and participation of older people in climate change issues are important as older people can be seen as potential contributors to, AND CASUALTIES OF, climate change as well as potential campaigners to tackle the problem.”
    So old people can’t handle one extra degree of heat? Can somebody explain why they like to move to Florida then?

  102. There was a time I felt guilty – briefly – for my carbon footprint but “findings” like this make me want to expand my footprint mightily. But I won’t, because there are good reasons other than AGW for cutting resource consumption – neverthe less, 8 long haul flights this year, for good reasons, and thanks to the blogosphere I don’t feel guilty about the CO2 as such.
    Only 63, but still find I know more science than most youngsters, many of whom can’t think properly, or do the ball park estimates that show what cr*p is peddled (such as there being enough renewable power to meet current needs)

  103. The trouble with us baby boomers is that we’ve heard it all before, several times usually. We are all going to “freeze in the next iceage”, “fry because of global warming”, “die from Hong Kong or bird or swine flu”, “the y2k bug will end civilisation”, etc etc etc.
    Yes, well I’ll believe it when I see it. Until then leave me alone to get on with living.

  104. you have to realise that think tanks and institutions produce this kind of report on virtually every policy issue.
    almost everything consumed in the media is a product of this kind of research-generated public manipulation campaign.
    none of your beliefs are left to chance 😉


  105. Robert of Ottawa says:
    August 26, 2010 at 12:37 pm
    Sounds like the greenshirts will be opening up re-education camps soon. And they get government our money to do this to us?

    we have those in california already.
    we call them “schools”

  106. “Baby boomers’ (aged 50-64) currently have the highest carbon footprint in the UK compared with other age groups.”
    Utter complete rubbish, where do they get their information from. they must make it up!
    I am one of these and I remember as a child houses with no central heating, scraping ice off the inside of the windows, toilets outside that froze in the winter, no motor car to take us to school, or anywhere else, we walked or rode our bikes.
    So Dr Haq what was your childhood carbon footprint like?

  107. Oh great educate me again on this global warming? I’ve seen the global cooling scare , I lived through the late 1940’s wonderful years, the 50’s and 60’s frost up the sides of the glasshouses and the field crops crunching with ice, thank him up where ever it warmed up in the 70’s and 80’s, now we’re slowly cooling down again, hm, I wonder if being old means I can remember the cycles of nature?

  108. Bernie:
    human ecology worth examining
    What a good idea!. Some people, specially the greens, think ecology only refers to a beautiful lawn with flowers, it is really about EVERTHING FEEDS OF EVERYTHING and its equilibrium. Evidently there a lack of a ROBUST population of big predators in Sweden.

  109. Lee Kington : August 26, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    You are exactly right. That describes the same older generation I know and now I find I’m one of them.
    Many of the younger people I come in contact today are totally wasteful, talk about consumption! Use it, toss it, they will just drive down to WalMart or Home Depot to just buy more of what was just tossed a week or month ago and it was perfectly reusable sometimes needing a bit cleaning or maintenance. I’ve seen this happen over and over again as I shake my head, a throw-away generation. What would young people do without superstores I wonder? And guess what many call themselves, environmentalists, they have no idea.
    Bet my spare-parts drawers out-number yours. ☺
    Use something from them all the time.
    No driving. No spending. No impact, however, sometimes improvising required.
    Dr, Haq:
    I think you and RSVP have picked the wrong generation. If he has done this by polls, he has been misled, he needs to get personal and go visit their homes and observe their habits, you will find you have it backwards.
    Oh, and being unable to handle the climate, Dr. Haq, it is your generation or younger that is having trouble with the climate. I’ve been here long enough to know there has been no change in climate, bit warm in the 1990’s, but you are just a youngster how would you know?

  110. “As the ‘baby boomers’ move into the older groups they will replace low carbon footprint habits and values with relatively high consumption habits. ”
    Bullsh…. . Whoever wrote those words is obviously not retired and living on a limited budget.
    Not that I am but my parents and in-laws are. While they may fly more often than they did when they were younger so do I. My parents don’t commute to work everyday and they eat less and their house is smaller. Their, so-called, footprint is half what it used to be.

  111. @ShrNfr
    ‘Yeah, and I forgot that my wife who is older than I am still works at MIT processing Voyager data’
    Hold on. She’s still processing the data from Voyager? O_0

  112. Life long educated voters,
    are not AGW idea toters,
    they see the hype, ignore the tripe,
    resist the change, out side the range,
    of natural variability, and civility.
    BS detectors, tuned to see,
    hurry do it now! scams to be,
    rational decisions are only made,
    after long careful plans are laid,
    openly discussed, not overly fussed,
    data plainly in sight, not hidden over night.
    CO2 I breath out, garden plants doth sprout,
    tenderly planted is the seed, that me it will feed,
    as I gather unto my garden more compost still,
    like this BS study, digested before under I’ll till,
    by some stupid ruddy, with lack of sense or skill.
    honing propaganda, for grand papa,
    the fool sets the stage, to teach the sage,
    the undigested crap, delivered like a rap,
    the talking points, (Haq anoints) are steeped in joints,
    cause the smoke he’s blowing, we are already knowing.

  113. wrote a poem, hit send,
    is it in the rubbish bin?
    or is it just round the bend,
    like the life I’m in?
    [reply] I found it in the spam, and put it back on show, you can see it anyway, but I thought you’d like to know. 😉 RT-mod

  114. After reading this I shal get out my T-shirt:”Old age and treachery will over come youth and enthusiasm” It even applies here…

  115. Typical bullshit from the politically correct. I can imagine the amount of it (BS) that was talked during all the meetings these prats would have had that led up to this crap being published.

  116. Fox has those guys locked up already. And they’re afraid of subversive reasons to cut health care & social security.

  117. Severian says:
    August 26, 2010 at 10:30 am
    Wow…guess the political re-education camps will need wheelchair access ramps.

    As long as they have shovels in the Climate-Gulag to keep those ramps free of snow.

  118. Beyond parody, but totally out there in green la la land
    What’s a carbon date, and how can I get one?!
    The life of a student is full of stresses and strains; exams, mocks, essays and lectures all mean that it can be hard to find time for romance.
    Speed Dating
    So there’s really only one way to find your perfect partner – go on a date with your carbon ‘sole’mate!
    What is Carbon Speed Dating?
    Carbon Speed Dating works just like any speed dating event, but with a tiny twist….you get matched up for your dates according to your carbon footprint. You get to have a great time, meet some new people, and hopefully find somebody you want to reduce your carbon footprint with at the end of the day!
    The idea with these events is to engage students who wouldn’t normally get involved in green stuff. Finding out your carbon footprint and sharing it with someone else can be a great conversation starter – and just imagine the low-carbon date opportunities if you find your carbon solemate! Candle-lit veggie dinner dates, a [Can Film Festival] romantic movie, a long walk or cycle ride for two….

  119. This struck a chord, didn’t it? This is nothing more then marketing 101, I had that course about 40 years ago. The authors forget one important thing. By the time we reach our “senior years” what ever that is, we are way to smart for this crap or to far gone of be of value. We have either abandoned all religion as foolishness or are so committed to one of them we are not about to change. Then there is a whole group of us who have never grown up, refuse to do so and only become more obstinate, not less, especially when it comes to suffering fools of any strip, unless they are willing to buy the beer. You know, that often golden to dark brown liquid just full of carbon dioxide.
    I think I will put my bicycle on the back of my car an drive out to the county to ride it. I certainly don’t want to make my carbon foot print smaller. Some times us old people get spiteful too. Yes, and print this study to take with me. You know us old farts, we can’t leave home without sufficient butt wipe, now can we.

  120. Dr. Heimlich, please report to emergency.
    “lower, doctor- a lot lower – it just won’t come out!”

  121. UK John says: “. . . toilets outside that froze in the winter. . .”
    You had a toilet in your outhouse? LUXURY! For a time we didn’t even have a house on our outhouse.
    “. . .no motor car to take us to school, or anywhere else, we walked or rode our bikes.”
    My carbon footprint still says “Schwinn” on the chain guard. I’m sure Mr. Huq would approve of that, but if he thinks I’ve made that choice to “save the planet” he’s got another think coming. As others here have noted many of us Old Codgers were conservative in our use of materials (because we appreciated them) and “environmentally aware” long before Mr. Huq was born; but have declined to allow that to make us stupid. We learned the difference between our arse and the hole in the ground we used to squat it over.

  122. “The Lord hath delivered [them] into our hands.” Huxley, answering “Soapy Sam” Bishop Wilberforce
    1. Abandon old stereotypes. Ask the pimple-faced investigators if they know what “skeptic” really means.
    2. Get to know your target audience. Appreciate the vicissitudes of pimples.
    3. Use trusted brands. Ask if they realize how old [Moses] [Churchill] [name your own] was when they started their “real” work.
    4. Use peer to peer communication. Put yourself in their shoes and ask them to put themselves in your shoes – with a little help from your experience, since after all, age knows youth but youth can only imagine age.
    5. Use positive messages. Tell them your own past U-turns and tell them it’s ok to be wrong, say sorry, etc.
    6. Use the right “frames”. eh, what’s that? please use the Crystal Standard of English, and please don’t frame us for the Stockholm Syndrome.
    7. Show real life examples. Tell them about the Crusades, Tulipmania, and the South Sea Bubble.
    8. Develop an inclusive dialogue. Ask them if they care about truth – scientific method – checking basic info, and find out where the cutting edge of their knowledge lies.
    9. Maximise participation. Pop a few fizzy drinks to demonstrate the outgassing power of the oceans.
    10. Ensure the setting is right for change. I bet there is a paper somewhere that shows, statistically, that those most resistant to new ideas are the very ones who by their position ie scientific positions of responsibility, should be the most open to change. Ask them where they want future generations to see them. Tell them things are changing in the favour of skeptics and they have now got far more openings to challenge the old guard and establish names for themselves as skeptics.

  123. I can understand that this does appear quite silly, and one is likely to laugh at these ridiculous conclusions. But understand this: These people are deadly serious. They are studying ways of controlling the population with the same detached manner that pathologists dissect a specimen. The part they will never discuss openly is what to do with the “older people” once lulled into compliance. Some sort of “solution” is in store, I’m sure. After all, what use are “older people” really? They cost a lot more money to keep alive… Besides, didn’t they constantly tell you what to do and make you go to bed when you wanted to stay up all night and pull the wings off of flies? Look at how much air they breathe! If we are going to save this fragile planet, we must make some difficult decisions. We must all do our part to save the earth! Something must be done about the growing menace of “older people”!
    And by the way, we have also decided to allow abortions up to the age of twelve. Better be a good boy!

  124. As someone who missed being classified as a “boomer” by not that many years, I say these people should leave the older folks alone. They know how to not be wasteful, how to have small “carbon footprints” without specifically trying, and throughout their lives must surely have accumulated “carbon savings” greater than what people born these days will achieve.
    After all, they were walking ten miles to school through snow three feet thick while my and younger generations were riding the school… Actually we just got a “snow day” and took off, but, well, you get the idea.

  125. Addendum @ Lee Kingston, Wayne, et al:
    “Many of the younger people I come in contact today are totally wasteful, talk about consumption! Use it, toss it, they will just drive down to WalMart or Home Depot to just buy more of what was just tossed a week or month ago and it was perfectly reusable sometimes needing a bit cleaning or maintenance.”
    We have developed a generation of what I call Anti-Materialist Hyper-Consumers. People who have never known a day of real want in their lives and have no reason to expect one in future, who, often as an overt act of demonstrating that they are not Materialists, do not care for, and often outright abuse, their things. Hence needing to replace them at ever accelerating rates (Warning! Incoming physicist joke: I call this “The Jerk Factor”).
    It is the piles of plastic trash this generates that worries me more environmentally than some “Old Guy” who can finally, after nursing it along for a couple of decades, afford to replace that old Skoda with a Harley and/or Porsche.

  126. Lucy in the Sky:-
    8. Develop an inclusive dialogue. Ask them if they care about truth – scientific method – checking basic info, and find out where the cutting edge of their knowledge lies.

    With Diamonds!

  127. foxgoose, I will put in my 2 cents for the new mustang with the big engine and all the performance stuff. Not that I do not like Porsches, there is one in the driveway and one in the shop getting a new gas tank. The crud they spread on the roads up here in Boston would corrode anything and it is 23 years old.

  128. It is never too late to learn. Evidently at 70+ I am classified as an Elder. I don’t suppose the whippersnapper of a ‘social ecologist’ was ever told to “respect your elders”.
    And if this blog is anything to go by, my fellow Elders and Seniors and Boomers still have their faculties and wit. I would pity any watermelons charged with “engaging” with us. TinyCO2 @August 26, 2010 at 9:48 am said it all.

  129. “…less able to cope with the effects of climate-related weather events.”
    How is one to “cope with” an effect of a local average of weather? There is no such thing
    as “climate-related weather events”. There is only weather and a periodically human averaged weather , which is sometimes called “climate”, which is not a cause of anything.

  130. Ditto to ShrNfr (August 26, 2010 at 4:07 pm) on the Mustang GT. I’m hankering for one myself, though the prospect of garaging it in the winter is annoying (I’m also in the Boston area).
    And as a “39 and holding” (Jerry Lee Lewis) codger, if any of these danged nimcompoops come after me, they’ll find their immediate climate heating up all right.
    /Mr Lynn

  131. Fellow old folks, we are missing the opportunity!! Let the watermelon in, offer a drink (not your best Scotch, though) and sit the ignoramus in front of your computer and start to re-educate him/her. Start with Watts Up With That, perhaps. There is nothing like a one-on-one discussion to get the good points across. You may get a convert — or the poor soul will shoot out of the door faster than a jack rabbit.

  132. I’ve finally found Climate Talk of SEI at York Uni, it’s about outreach to over-50’s in Yorkshire.
    I’d like to tell Dr Haq about this thread and point him to Dusty here, but first, I’d like people here to note that
    (a) I cannot find the ten points of communication anywhere outside the 2010 press release
    (b) the press release gives no title to the project. But after searching four pages of SEI projects plus Dr Haq, one concludes the project is “Climate Talk”, see my link above.
    (c) unfortunately this project was started in 2007 and ended in 2008; its dedicated website http://www.climatetalk.org.uk advises there is another website for the current project, called York Green Streets Challenge
    (d)… which is “temporarily unavailable”
    Hahahaha

  133. @Bernie says:
    @August 26, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    Yes, you have identified the root of the problem. I suspect a similar lack of proper education in East Anglia…

  134. “It acknowledges that older people may be physically, financially and emotionally less able to cope with the effects of climate-related weather events.”

    Yes, like the 40,000 excess deaths in the UK this past winter. Mild winters are better for old people in the UK, so stuff them!

  135. Im extremely sorry!
    We brought Ahrennius Bohlin and the Stocholm conference on you guys.The initiative to this corrupted monster called IPCC (you the bad exuse of and substitute to science) is Im sorry to admit is basicly Swedish!! But dont blam or expect all swedes to be corrupted and politizised.
    You have to understand what kind of siege we are under here! Maby you dont think this can be true but it is….SEI is the Swedish gouvernment advisor in its relations with UNEP!!! Dont laugh!! Please!!! SEI is earns no less than 168.000.000 sek on the trafficing of climate change scare. That we have a Swedish proffessor as lead athor (Chang) on AR5 chapter one. Whos already stated that he knows fore sure that the weather extrems is proven to be increacing in both frequence and intensity.
    Im very sorry guys but thats the case!!!.Now you know what sweden ordered to put into the next chapter.
    Yuo Englishmen you have your BBC that you think is biased!! Well you shold try the swedish public service SVT for a change. You are lucky! and you also have the Daily Telegraf do think that we have ONE SINGLE MSM Newspaper that is just a tiny tiny little bit sceptic ??? Sorry go to any Swedish paper on the internet. What will meet you as first and dominate your impression is the total spam of banners from WWF everywhere no matter what newspaper you choose,or what article WWF is there!!!
    That the most dominante climate journalists in Sweden has scollarships from WWF..do you think that that might effect their impartiality?? I dont know but there might be a connection? We are totally barraged with propaganda I think Castro looks at sweden wondering why dictatorship is necessary when you can copy the swedish soluotion instead and make it look like a free media.
    The main man of SEI Mr Johan Rockström has been treated as a living oracle by our public service. He was appointed the —please dont laugh…Swede of the year!! His favorit mainm climatescare has been the Antarctica you know ?? The melting araea
    and know I wonder if its not the spot where the climacteriologist is peening that hes been studying…or do you know any other area thats melting away in Antarctica!!! Beats me though!
    But please support the climate propaganda restistance groups here in Sweden.Without any authority from M Tauerskiöld whos been extremely brave to run the “The Climats Scam” blogg i really asks for your support. Please come and visit us there.Everybody understand english and we would just love to have some indication that we are not the only sain people in the world! Support us and please please confirm that you know that we exist.There still are som healthy spots and some hope for sweden. 🙂

  136. I would like to refer Dr Hack to a paper by Dr B. Ullshidt and Dr Horst Droppings entitled “How to Manipulate Old People”.
    It’s a very short paper, arrived at after extensive research. It came to the following principal conclusion:
    “Don’t even try, because they’ve seen/heard it all before.”
    Dr Haq is brought to you by the Carbon Life Forms Against Carbon Coalition.
    Motto: “The unseeing leading the blind in a quest of ignorance”

  137. “….while older people are concerned about climate change, they do not feel they will be directly affected. Nor do they feel they can personally take action to stop it…”
    When that begins to make sense, you are entering senile decay.

  138. juanslayton says:
    August 26, 2010 at 12:28 pm “no URL”
    Hi JS,
    Me thinks, maybe, it is from here (and it will cost you):
    http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1960/04/23/1960_04_23_043_TNY_CARDS_000262805
    Ogden Nash, Poetry, “Laments For a Dying Language,” The New Yorker, April 23, 1960, p. 43
    Read the full text of this article in the digital edition. (Subscription required.)
    “ABSTRACT: In the nice-minded Department of Prunes and Prisms,”

  139. “”” Bernie says:
    August 26, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    I was intrigued by Gary’s shyness about his academic background – so I went looking:
    Gary Haq’s Education
    Open University
    Continuing Professional Development , Psychology , 2007 — 2008
    Open University
    Dip. Econ. , Economics , 2000 — 2002
    Lancaster University
    PhD , Geography (Transport & Environment) , 1991 — 1995
    University of College Wales, Aberystwyth
    MSc , Environmental Impact Assessment , 1990 — 1991 “””
    Hang on a minute there; you mean there are actually universities where you can study “Environmental Impact Assessment” for about six years or so; (four to get a Bachelors, plus another two for a Masters) ?
    That’s incredible. I knew that when you study for a PhD (Doctor Laura has a PhD); they teach you more and more about less and less; but I thought you actually had to learn something to get a Masters degree.
    I thought about getting a PhD in Ice Cream Making; but the classified ad section in the newspaper for qualified PhD Ice Cream Maker jobs was a bit sparse, so I thought it more useful to learn some broader skills; like maybe Physics and Mathematics.
    When I went to University, you could get a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mathematics, or Physics, or Chemistry, or Biology; maybe Geology, but that was it; there was no such thing as “Climate Science” back then. They didn’t even have “Political Science” back then; or even “Computer Science” either.
    Obviously they spend too much time on the football program these days, and not enough on Academic subjects.
    Environmental Impact Assessment eh; I’ll have to ask my boss, if I would get a raise if I got a degree in that.

  140. Slabadang says: ” . . . “The Climats Scam” blogg i really asks for your support. Please come and visit us there.Everybody understand english. . .”
    . . . “ekoimperialismens” ; Although your translation software isn’t much better than average. Not to worry, over the years I’ve become relatively fluent in Babelfish. I can cope. Nor should you worry overmuch about Americans holding individual Swedes to task for the actions of their government. Americans of late have become used to being the ones to ask forgiveness for the actions of our government (at least if you’re not French). We understand. I’ll bookmark the site and try to stop by for a longer stay at some point. In the meantime; Goodbye, and, ummmm, thanks for all the fish. Yeah.

  141. Latitude at aug. 26 at 11:49 What i was trying to say was the vote has not turned out the way they would like;any country, So get to the boomers so they can get the vote the next go around and the way most countrys go every couple of years, hence go after the boomers. Another thing i have seen written by others about acid rain meme in the 80s, I remember the acid rain thing from the late 70s here in the USA.

  142. I made the mistake of reading this immediately after reading the Onion. I couldn’t tell the difference between this and an intentional joke.

  143. I showed this to my wife. Like myself, she enjoyed the comments far more than the article or the other links. I am not going to repeat her comments here or I will get snipped. However, she is now interested in seeing if she can turn the good doctor into a glow in the dark toy. Is he available for an appointment in her department? It won’t hurt a bit, initially… Is she upset? Nawww!!!
    I volunteer to box his ears with one of my math tomes that I keep here for reference…
    Just another coupla codgers here eh?


  144. Hm. To be perfectly frank, I welcome Dr. Haq’s statement to the effect that “The engagement and participation of older people in climate change issues are important as older people can be seen as potential contributors to, and casualties of, climate change as well as potential campaigners to tackle the problem.
    As one of those “older people” myself, I’ve been engaged and participating in “climate change issues” since the anthropogenic global warming hokum began to surface back in the late ’70s, and I’d delight in seeing more of my age cadre getting involved.
    Those to whom a reasoned appeal can be addressed as I know how. Those who have been suckered by the AGW fraud can be induced to quit propounding error and come over to common sense. Or to shut up and quit making fools of themselves.
    But be very careful about what you ask for, Dr. Haq. When you get the “engagement and participation” for which you’re faunching, it’s a high probability that my generation will be entering the lists with every intention of hanging the remnants of your carcass in the sun to dry.

  145. Hmmm. I thought “Stockholm Syndrome” had something to do with liking the people who took you hostage. I have no affection for anyone who tells me how to live my life or what I can or cannot do. Downright hostility, in fact. (except when my doctor advises against skydiving, perhaps)
    As a card carrying COG (Certified Old Grouch) who scoffed at the notion of “not trusting anyone over 30” (being well past that point back then) and convinced that we should not trust anyone, under 30 or otherwise, I feel rather offended by the tone of Haq’s proposals. How many businesses has he started? How many payrolls has he met? Just what does he know about anything outside his ivory tower?
    Old Geezers, Unite! Throw these young whippersnippers out!
    (kfg – I think it was “so long, and thanks for all the fish”
    I’d drive over there and give Haq a piece of my mind. If I could remember where I parked my car …

  146. Ages ago I had T shirts printed that read
    ” Youngsters! Leave home now, while you still know everything!”
    Still have some in an office cupboard.
    I have to be careful now as anytime I read about Haq, Gore or Clinton spouting AGW polycrap my blood pressure rises! At those times my nurse says she can actually feel a pulse.
    Mr Haq needs my T shirt.

  147. Dad was here visiting for about 6 weeks, he left to go home to Florida on Tuesday. Dad doesn’t qualify as and old codger under the definition given by Dr Quak. He is a little to old, being born in March of 1918. I had Dad talk to some of my grand kids and recorded it. About 1 and 1/2 hours of pure pleasure as they sat there wondering what he was talking about and the pleasure he received having to explain some of the measures they took to survive the crash of 29 and the dust bowl of the 30’s. Yep he is just to old to be one of the old codgers Dr. Quak speaks of. By the way Dad has just recently decided that his wrists are getting weak and had to give up his 44 magnum for a smaller 38 special. Dad is hard core serving in WWII in the merchant marine and working during the recession of the 50’s and the cold during that time and the 60’s. We moved to Fla for the warm weather in 60 dad was 43 I was 10. We had lived in NW Mississippi and I remember when the first electricity was available and everyone left the front porch light on all night just in case someone was looking and could see how modern we were. The first telephones came about 4 years later. Now me I guess I am an old codger/boomer, I’m 60 now and I have a large foot print even tho I am disabled I am still raising with my wife also disabled 4 grand kids cause the younger generation has a problem it seems with (not all of them thank God) responsibility. We did so enjoy that little one bedroom bungalo we lived in before forced to get the large 4 bedroom due to the increase in family size. (unplaned) The older I get and the more I dislike physical pain the more I understand one of dads favorite sayings, “Don’t pick a fight with an old man he will just……..” Well the conversations usually ends with a veryloud and abrupt conclusion. Us older folks have been here long enough to have seen the cycles come and go and we have heard about all the arguments from the many experts. It is just that we have learned that it isn’t necessary that we have to put up with it if we don’t want to . So all you younguns just keep in mind that if you decide that us older folks just have to change our ways, “Don’t pick a fight with an old man he will just ……” Leave us alone we have been through and done more than most of you will ever think about, the world isn’t seen through a computer screen. Before it is over you will be wishing for some warmer “climate”. Just a few thoughts kinda like Dad would have explained them. By the way Dad at 93 with out any hesitation states that this cagw is a bunch of crap and a scam. His words.
    Bill Derryberry

  148. Dad just left to return to Florida on Tuesday last. I had the pleasure of recording him talking to some of my grand kids about things in his past. Dad was born in 1917. They were very amazed at some of the things he talked about. How cold it was in the early 20’s and how hot it was during the dust bowl years of the 30’s. How even in the city of Memphis Tn. most homes didn’t have “indoor plumbing”. How it was being in the merchant marine during WWII. How cold it was in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s. All of the good things like how when we lived in Mississippi in the 50’s and they first run electrical service to that area. How the first telephones were installed. We had the first television in the area and everyone came over on Saturday nights to watch the Saturday night fights and Red Skelton. Setting up blocks and boards like the movie house in town. home maid popcorn on the stove top made with real popcorn before microwaves. How the first running water in the house was a pitcher pump in the kitchen and before that we had to walk down the hill and draw water from the old well. Then the real pump in the shed in the back yard and the first indoor bathroom. Oh how that was better than the trip around the kitchen garden to the out house on the side of the hill with the single hole. Yep Dad doesn’t qualify as one of Dr. Quak’s old codgers he is just to old at 93/ Probably burns to much carbon with all the conveniences he had most of his life. A couple of years ago Dad decided his wrist was getting weak and changed from his 44 magnum to a 38 special. I do qualify as an old codger at 60 and have come to appreciate one of Dad’s favorite sayings. “Don’t pick a fight with an old man he will just ……….” Which meant that the ending was usually very loud and abrupt. I find that as I grow older I have realized that after living a rather active lifestyle Military, hard work, sever life threatening illness, severe injuries, alterations and what have you, that I just am no longer inclined to put up with the drivel that comes from these folks that all seem to know better than I how I should live. My suggestion to Dr. Quak would be to leave me alone and many another old codger. You just never know about those old men. They may not be inclined to be very patient.
    By the way Dad while here said with out any hesitation and very bluntly that this CAGW thing was crap and scam. I agree. Just a few thoughts from an old codger listening to his Dad who is to old to be an old codger by Dr. Quak’s definition.
    Bill Derryberry

  149. Oops Dad was born in March of 17. The good Dr. Quak would probably not relish an engagement with Dad. Dad will only put up with so much and it gets less and less as the days pass. God love him.
    Bill Derryberry

  150. The report, prepared in partnership with the Community Service Volunteers’ Retired and Senior Volunteer Programme (RSVP), urges the scrapping of stereotypes which suggest that older people are incapable of engagement, passive or disinterested in climate change.
    Maybe these Post Normal Midgets should scrap all of their stereotypes, including their IQ = 80 “core” memes: hey, then they wouldn’t be able to talk at all!

  151. “The older I get, the smarter [insert your favorite, previously derided “older person”] gets.” If you continue to learn, it happens quite a lot…right, Dr. Haq?

  152. “and the use of trusted agents ”
    Let me fix that for you:
    “and the use of trusted double agents”
    There, now it’s more honest…
    The problem they have with us “old folks” is that we REMEMBER when it was just like this last time and that nothing is really different at all. And some of us remember talking to OUR elders and having them tell us just how hot it really was in the 1930’s, and how it was much cooler since then (conversation was in the 1970’s during the “ice age” scare) but that it was also about the same coldness back in the 1800s (the person was ’80 something’ and was a kid in the late 1800s).
    No amount of propaganda, no matter how craftily done, will change those facts.
    So, OK, they’ve decided that they need a propaganda campaign. Maybe they ought to just try speaking the truth plainly instead.

  153. There was a charity for codgers in the UK called ‘Age Concern’, a friend of mine needed one of their pamphlets translated into Somali for a local community. The pamphlet wasn’t well received. When he looked into it the title ‘Age Concern’ had been translated as ‘Fear of the Elderly’.
    cheers David.

  154. The problem with alarmists is there is always a good reason that when they are wrong the are right.
    The fact of the matter is there is just as much realism in the younger generation.
    If you have lived in the uk during August or went on holiday you would be having a miserable even worse the torrential rains in Pakistan has caused major devastation to the people living on the flood plain.

  155. I was trying to say, this press release looks like a completely empty threat without even a viable project behind it, just like the IPCC Amazon stuff traceable back to WWF… unless I’ve missed the fine print somewhere and I did spend an hour looking…
    …full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  156. Sites are being excavated in Norfolk which show that in palaeolithic times (11000 years ago) they were occupied again and again (flint quarries mainly), before being beaten back by resurgent icefields. The warmists do not seem to be aware that we are inevitably heading for another ice age and that no amount of genetic modification will get wheat, or soya beans to germinate and grow under a mile thick ice sheet. The palaeolithic folk weren’t even farmers they just quarried flints to hunt a few animals and did up the odd root and gather some berries (holly probably). What we need to do now is not reduce CO2 emissions but go prospecting for more flint deposits for our future hunter gatherer society.

  157. Just throwing in my 2 cents to show I haven’t gone belly up.
    I tell people, I have the right to say anything I want as I get older. It gives you that priviledge to at times have a “seniors moment” or have knowledge from experiences.

  158. People who are still working, still obtaining multiple qualifications and asking their boss for a raise do not qualify to be adressed as or receive the title of ‘Old Codger’.

  159. “The older age sector” – jeez, why do they always have to use these stupid communistic terms? Just call ’em old folks, it’s not an offensive term!
    I have to say, I find it extra dispiriting when I hear some indoctrinated older person lecturing as to the virtues of Greenism because I always think older people should be wise enough to know better. Happily most do.

  160. These people doing this type of tax payer funded research are lacking in many things, common sense comes to mind. Maybe the lack of ever having a real job, or taking a risk in life to make ones way independently of the public trough. Knowledge of the real world, and life experience away from the brainwashing. One can only imagine the uproar of other segments in our population if ideas such as these were levelled against them. Well I refuse to grow old gracefully my 130HP harley will be my old age transport {soon} converted to a trike with an electric loading ramp for my electric mobility scooter. I have been told it is loud, but I fail to hear the loudness, it also converts petrol very efficiently into heat, noise and CO2 at around 26 MPG, but is a lot of fun. The thing that comes to mind most about these people, is their total lack of fun and sense of humour, they really take themselves too seriously. They fail to realise that life is short, and ideologies can consume a life with no achievement, and often disappointment and misery at the end. Thus I grow old disgracefully and loving it.

  161. Thank you to everyone for your comments and criticisms. The report has obviously stimulated a lot of debate!
    However, I am sorry if you have perceived this work to be “insulting”, “patronising”, “ageist”, “manipulation” or “eco-whining” – just a few of the comments I have received.
    The report addresses three issues: climate change, older people and public engagement.
    It is clear from many of the comments posted that despite the scientific evidence that most people here think that climate change is not influenced by human activity and that this theory is basically a load of twaddle.
    I addressed this issue in a recent article in The Yorkshire Post.
    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Gary-Haq-Meltdown-cannot-hide.6066390.jp
    As an environmentalist I am obviously concerned about the human impact on the environment. Even if we ignore climate change, we still have the problem of overpopulation, depleting natural resources, loss of biodiversity and general environmental degradation.
    If you want to know about the state of the planet see the UN’s Global Environmental Outlook report- you can ignore the section on climate change.
    http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/
    There is still a need to examine our high consuming way of life and to become more efficient in the use of natural resources. This requires raising public awareness of how different lifestyle choices have different impacts. There is a general tendency that the more money we have, the more we consume and the bigger our environmental impact.
    Different target audiences require different approaches. Our report addresses the approaches used to engage older demographic groups and highlights the need to develop an approach that recognises the opportunities and challenges in later life.
    It is important to understand the changes of an ageing population for society in general.
    Obviously, if you are sceptical about human-induced climate change then you will thnk the report is a load a rubbish – that is fine by me.

  162. Gary Haq,
    I don’t think you have through most of the relevant information. From what I’ve seen on the skeptic sites:
    1. I don’t DENY climate change, but I am skeptical that that it is primarily caused by humanity nor is it catastrophic.
    2. I am skeptical that the so called human impact can be measured by a single metric, CO2.
    3. I see that same groups that have always manipulated markets involved with promoting the CAGW agenda, i.e. GE, BP and even Enron before they went under. It’s money and politcs as usual.
    What I’ve seen on pro CAGW sites and in the media is a violent, defensive posturing, more appropriate to politics than to science.
    By focusing on separate groups as if they are not inherently intelligent enough, you’re doing the same thing as when they told us the CAGW science was settled. Most people with very little effort can find enough information to make up their own mind about the issue without help from spin groups.
    Thanks for responding.

  163. Bernie: “Bottom line: Dr. Gary Haq is another example of a catastrophic over expansion of the British University system. It has created jobs for those who are essentially parasites – perhaps one of the few topics in human ecology worth examining”
    Too true, most of these establishments are former ‘polytechnics’ which were to teach theoretical and practical skills for people with no academic bent, who did not have the intellect for university.
    The Open University is even more so – it’s run over the internet and anyone can join up. I’ve looked at its teaching materials (I’ve friends who have taken the ocurses and others who have ‘taught’ them). It was set up to cater for people who spend their whole lives with a chip on their shoulder because they don’t have a degree. But the last thin git teaches you is to reason: there is no liberty of study or conclusion. It’s become an exercise in thought control by the liberal-left: you get your degree if you give the correct answers in course work and exams. It’s entirely skewed to political correctness, especially in the sociology fields. In short, it’s a pernicious influence.
    Aberystwyth is an interesting case: it specialises in math and codes, and there is a case to be made that it’s both a cover and a recruiting ground for the intelligence services.
    Some great replies on this thread. I’m a baby boomer myself (Jan 1946) and my carbon footprint is miniscule and always has been. I buy almost everything secondhand and buy food which is on its sale date and marked down. I was an environmentalist in the late 1960s – but I went to a good university where I was taught tho THINK for myself and do my own research – and I’m not swallowing any of their AGW bull.
    Educated baby boomers are mostly immune to propaganda – sadly this doesn’t follow for the political class, who even at college spent more time trying to tell others what to think than on their education

  164. Djozar ,
    “By focusing on separate groups as if they are not inherently intelligent enough, you’re doing the same thing as when they told us the CAGW science was settled. Most people with very little effort can find enough information to make up their own mind about the issue without help from spin groups.”
    We do not assume that this demogprahic group is “not inherently intelligent” and or cannot make up their own mind. From our experience we found that not all people in this demographic group have access to the internet, information sources or knows what action to take.
    If you are questioning the validity of the message (climate change) then our approach would probably seem pointless to you.

  165. A message for Sam and Bernie and others,
    You have a right to disagree with my opinons on this issue – a bit of scepticism is healthy!
    However, I think it is below the belt to get personal and undertake this character assassination with you critique of my academic record and abilities and imply that I am stupid because I do not share your opinon.

  166. urges the scrapping of stereotypes which suggest that older people are incapable of engagement, passive or disinterested
    Darn, I thought this was going to be a sex manual for us old folks. What a waste.

  167. Gents, allow me to say that I hardly need to be told by anyone in this institution what and how to think. I have honed that skill for myself over the last six or more decades.

  168. garyhaq says:
    August 27, 2010 at 7:14 am
    > If you are questioning the validity of the message (climate change) then our approach would probably seem pointless to you.<
    Stick around – you have a lot to learn. It’ll be a few years before the AMO turns cold, I’m not sure what that portends for York or Sweden, but you my find yourself wishing for the good old days of global warming.
    As for your issues of resource depletion and overpopulation, I strongly, strongly recommend you don’t ride climate change’s coattails. If they’re as important as you think they are, they can stand by themselves.

  169. Gary:
    Welcome to WUWT.
    I read your piece in the Yorkshire Post. Your brother-in-law seems to have his head screwed on. My guess is that he might be familiar with this site? It is good that you at least listen to contrary viewpoints.
    In my opinion your view of human nature and human behavior is problematic. But let’s focus on the empirical facts. You argue that 50 to 64 year olds produce more tons of carbon dioxide than do other age groups. Can you explain this calculation? Can you explain the size of the discretionary component? How much variance is there among this group? What % are producing 50% of the average? What % are producing 2 times the average? If so, what are they doing and how much of what they are doing is discretionary? Do you really not see how presumptuous and condescending your approach to changing human behavior is?
    As to the findings of climate science, your reference to the vast stores of methane and the implied strong positive feedback loop has a problem. Since we know the world has been warmer in the past, such a significant positive feedback mechanism would create an unstable process. Since there is no evidence that this has been the case, then raising the CH4 bogey amounts to irresponsible scaremongering.
    Similarly, you mention Tuvalu – a favorite topic here at WUWT because it is used iconically to scare folks.
    You said: “Unless you live on a small island state such as Tuvalu, near Fiji, which is slowly sinking due to the rising sea level, it is easy to think climate change is a myth.”
    I assume you have seen Webb, A.P., Kench, P.S., The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific, Global and Planetary Change (2010), doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003 .
    This study of actual physical land masses calls into question the net effects of changes in sea level in Micronesia. The authors conclude:
    This study presents analysis of the physical change in 27 atoll islands located in the central Pacific Ocean over the past 20 to 60 yr, a period over which instrumental records indicate an increase in sea level of the order of 2.0 mm yr−1.
    The results show that island area has remained largely stable or increased over the timeframe of analysis. Forty-three percent of islands increased in area by more than 3% with the largest increases of 30% on Betio (Tarawa atoll) and 28.3% on Funamanu (Funafuti atoll).
    There is no evidence of large-scale reduction in island area despite the upward trend in sea level. Consequently, islands have predominantly been persistent or expanded in area on atoll rims for the past 20 to 60 yr.

    Perhaps you could be less irresponsible and include this result as a caveat the next time you reference Tuvalu.
    The issue is not whether climate is changing or whether human beings impact climate. It is and we do. As always the devil is in the details and the details are very important and very much open to debate. Scaring old folks into paying more for grossly inefficient electricity generated from wind turbines, buying new appliances with questionable net CO2 gains, turning down their thermostats or spending inordinate amounts of time on public transportation is extremely irresponsible until the details are less in question.

  170. “We do not assume that this demogprahic group is “not inherently intelligent” and or cannot make up their own mind. From our experience we found that not all people in this demographic group have access to the internet, information sources or knows what action to take.”
    garyhaq,
    Some people don’t need access to the internet or desire it, they already have satisfactory information sources and are already doing all the actions necessary to live happily or at least adequately. FYI
    Andrew

  171. Gary Haq –
    “From our experience we found that not all people in this demographic group have access to the internet, information sources or knows what action to take.”
    I’m a member of a golf club with around 140 Senior (ie over age 55) members. A couple of years ago a new computer system was introduced so that registration for competitions and most communications would be carried out through the website and by email. There was much discussion and even fear that the senior members would stop entering competitions, and might even leave to join another club. Since the changeover, competitions have become oversubscribed almost every week and we’ve established that fewer than 10 seniors don’t have access to the internet (ie about 7%). Perhaps it’s not typical and it certainly isn’t a scientific survey, but I’d like to know more precisely what you mean by “not all people in this demographic group” in your comment above. For all we know, you could be meaning less than 1%. What do you regard as a significant percentage? If, say, 90% of the age group have access to the internet etc, how much would you recommend spending to reach out to the other 10%? Did you find out if the carbon footprint of those without computer access differed significantly from that of those with computer access? Without that information it is surely impossible to take your conclusions further.

  172. Hah! I’ve done my three score and ten and am now into borrowed time.
    I have a tin of ferrari red paint ready for my zimmer frame when it arrives
    and woe betide any policy wonks who stand in my way – I know where
    to stick the handles so it really hurts. They will become whimper-snappers.

  173. “However, I think it is below the belt to get personal and undertake this character assassination with you critique of my academic record and abilities and imply that I am stupid because I do not share your opinon.”
    garyhaq,
    The issue is that you are propagandizing about an issue (climate change) of which you have little or no understanding.
    Andrew

  174. garyhaq says:
    August 27, 2010 at 7:25 am
    A message for Sam and Bernie and others,
    You have a right to disagree with my opinons on this issue – a bit of scepticism is healthy!
    However, I think it is below the belt to get personal and undertake this character assassination with you critique of my academic record and abilities and imply that I am stupid because I do not share your opinon.
    __________
    Good point Gary. We apologize for implying that you are stupid. Please stick around and study the climate change issue, you will find that your study is based on a stupid premise. You may not have been willfully blind to the real nature of CAGW propaganda, but your blind acceptance of it has led you to do a really dumb study. We should have realized and implied that you were duped. Duped can be fixed, stupid is forever. How you respond to this will be a test of which implication is correct.

  175. “Gary Haq;
    Even if we ignore climate change, we still have the problem of overpopulation, depleting natural resources, loss of biodiversity and general environmental degradation.”
    Thanks for coming on to add to the debate. We are right behind you on this statement – AGW distracts too much from the real issues.
    cheers David

  176. Gary:
    You are grossly mistaken.
    Your academic credentials are absolutely fair game as is the accuracy of anything you write. If you step forward to enter the policy debate and deign to tell others how they should act, then you become a public figure and everyone is entitled to assess whether you should be listened to and trusted. You are trading off of your credentials and those credentials deserve scrutiny.
    For the record, I do not think you are stupid because you disagree with me. I think you are misguided because you advocate before you fully understand. I think that you are grievously ill-prepared to pronounce on how others should live their lives. I think you are foolish because you assume that others do not behave rationally given their situations. I think you are irresponsible because you make claims of imminent disasters which either cannot be verified or when checked prove to be exagerrated or non-existent. I think you are naive because your experience, from what I can gather, has been limited to academia talking to those who have the same elitist worldview. I think you are dangerous because you want to pursue your political goals at the expense of others’ freedom of choice. If you consider these to be personal attacks then you clearly should not be involved in the field of policy advocacy. Those who advocate change better be prepared to defend themselves.
    I am open to counter-arguments. Show me the calculations on the discretionary activities that lead to 50 to 64 year olds generating excessive Carbon Dioxide. Show me the basis for your belief that this group needs somehow to be informed by you as to how they should act and live. Show me that their curtailment of freedom of choice will produce meaningful benefits. You cannot finesse your way out of the argument simply by saying that since I do not share your view of the underlying climate science you do not have to justify the policies you advocate.

  177. Marketing to older people:
    Examine the AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons. They are well known for marketing various insurance products and several other things, currently hawking cell phones. The technical fine print says they don’t sell these things themselves, they only let their name be used for which they collect commissions; I’ll leave it to the readers of this to determine if they can tell the distinction by the ads. Of course, membership with AARP, which is offered from age 50 and up, is very often required, which very helpful people will gladly help you sign up for when you try to get those offers.
    BTW, dear mature person, are you feeling secure? Are you worried about leaving behind final expenses, staying in touch with loved ones, getting help in an medical emergency, being able to stay in your home, and/or saving enough on prescriptions to afford food? AARP, actually AARP-endorsed products, can help, according to the ads.
    So AARP gets to make more money from their endorsements (through their for-profit AARP Services Inc. unit) than they collect for their membership fees, let people believe in how hard this non-profit works to help the elderly, and gets recognized as an unquestionable political powerhouse in DC based on their membership.
    When the Obama socialized health care regime reform plan was launched, AARP signed on with their unquestionable support, after “tweaks” were made that would have allowed the selling of many reform-compatible health plans by AARP.
    Back in the days of Sarah Brady and Handgun Control Inc., my father and I took note how the AARP lent their support, and issued a recommendation to their members to get rid of any firearms in their homes.
    How many older people, looking at their meager finances and thinking about saving money with this great big discount plan that is AARP, really know what they are joining? What they will be giving their support to by simply being a member?
    Now in the above article, we see the AARP model being adapted by the eco-mentalists. Get them to buy things with the WWF panda bear seal to help the cute cuddly endangered animals. Sell the older people on getting some curly light bulbs to save themselves some money. Get them to think about the incredible ecological mess they will leave behind for those still living to deal with. Have them register and sign up for the newsletter for helpful tips on how to help the environment and save money in the process. Then point to the numbers and say how all these people are 100% committed to your agenda.
    First you market to the older people, then you sell them out. And to think it was considered scandalous when people found out those cheaper restaurant “senior menus” were pushing smaller-than-normal portions at higher prices for the amount than the regular menu items. Considering what others are trying to do to our “distinguished elders,” that’s just kid stuff.

  178. Grumbler –
    ““Gary Haq;
    Even if we ignore climate change, we still have the problem of overpopulation, depleting natural resources, loss of biodiversity and general environmental degradation.”
    Thanks for coming on to add to the debate. We are right behind you on this statement – AGW distracts too much from the real issues.
    cheers David”
    I agree with David. We should welcome Gary Haq’s willingness to “enter the lions’ den”. Let’s debate the issues and leave ad hominem attacks to the Warmists.

  179. Gary Haq pontificates:

    As an environmentalist I am obviously concerned about the human impact on the environment. Even if we ignore climate change, we still have the problem of overpopulation, depleting natural resources, loss of biodiversity and general environmental degradation.

    That kind of strawman response probably goes over well with your tenured pals in the academic cloister, Gary, but you’re cut no slack here for that kind of pablum. Give us quantifiable, testable facts.
    Complaining because your feet are being held to the fire here is just so much whining. Do a WUWT archive search for “Monckton” articles, and you will see that you’re being handled with kid gloves by comparison.
    I’m old enough to remember when the U.S. was almost as polluted as China. We have cleaned up 99.9% of our pollution over the past half century. So now that it’s hard to find actual pollution, the mindless herd is being told that beneficial non-pollutants such as CO2 are the new “pollution.” That is disingenuous — as I’m sure you know in your heart of hearts. CO2 is no more a pollutant than H2O.
    Every one of your other vague statements can be deconstructed as well: “Climate change” is, in fact, disbelieved by the advocates of CO2-as-pollution, who do not accept the fact that the climate changed prior to the industrial revolution; they say there was no MWP, no LIA, etc. Read MBH98 and MBH99. Look at the flat handle of Mann’s hockey stick. He claims that for a thousand years the planet’s temperature was flat and unchanging, until fossil fuel use became widespread. [Amazingly, some folks actually still believe Mann’s nonsense.]
    And those who wring their hands at the hopeless prospect of ‘depleting natural resources’ have no idea of how the free market works; as one commodity becomes more expensive, other, more cost-effective commodities begin to replace it. The Ivory Tower seems to be overpopulated with Malthusians and Luddites who never took Econ 101. Why is that? Or maybe it is due to having so little experience in the real world, where competition operates for the benefit of society?
    Next, ‘Loss of diversity.’ Make your case that 199 species living in a particular location is a quantifiably worse situation than 200 species. Keep in mind that the total number of organisms is generally the same in either case, but some species are simply better adapted, and squeeze out species that can’t effectively compete. Nature has always been that way. Who are you to presume to know better? I’ve been waiting for someone to argue the ‘biological diversity’ question. So please, make your case.
    Finally, the ‘overpopulation’ canard; the holy grail of the eco-enviro-Stalinists: [click]. The population is peaking, and will soon begin to reduce in line with growing global prosperity. This has always been the case. Why should it be different now? And why do people have to trumpet wild, overstated population numbers? Population is a non-problem. The planet is easily capable of sustaining a much larger population, but that will not be necessary. Prosperity naturally limits baby production.
    Gary, you’re finding out that fuzzy ideas and weak hypotheses are tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail here. This is honest peer review, not the pal review that either accepts fuzzy ideas unquestioningly, or conspires to keep data, methodologies and metadata out of the hands of skeptical scientists — the only honest kind of scientists.
    Argue your ideas, Gary. If half of them go down in flames, accept it, re-think your hypothesis — and don’t complain. That is the only way you will get respect on the internet’s “Best Science” site.

  180. It seems that the Institute upholds the stereotype by targeting older people as being a case apart, requiring special propaganda.

  181. Welcome Dr. Haq, Yes some people on this site and others of ethier side of debate can be hostile, and some as on this thread calm down after you come here to debate. My dis/agreement is yes AGW does distract from your premise of over/use,population,resources, enviromental degradation;bio -deverasity IMO is going to happen no matter what the earth does or not do much less us. So which do you wish to debate AGW or the other matter. YOUwill find your debate here, so buckle your seat belt because the contributors and commentersdo know what they are doing and talking about! Good luck and may we all come out the better for it

  182. Retired Engineer says: “kfg – I think it was “so long . . .””
    I have been peer reviewed and stand corrected, Sir.
    INGSOC says: “And by the way, we have also decided to allow abortions up to the age of twelve. ”
    Oh, hey; a Kino no Tabi fan. Kewl beans, Frito.
    garyhaq says: “If you are questioning the validity of the message (climate change) then our approach would probably seem pointless to you.”
    The evidence of this very thread is highly suggestive that your conclusion is false; ergo at least one of your assumptions is suggested to be false.

  183. Gary,
    Science is meant to be questioned; to me it’s not a matter of validity but of how robust your theory stands up to reality. Climate science at best is in it’s infancy; to declare that it’s settled in light of all the possible variables seems to me to be a conceit.
    The politics of the science is overwhelming the scince itslef. At present, I can’t even publish my name because I honestly fear retribution within the engineering community

  184. Well this is the problem, isn’t it Mr. Haq ?
    Over-population (and its numerous resulting consequences), depletion of natural resources, pollution, etc etc
    None of which have anything to do with AGW. These are complete separate issues in and of themselves, and need to be addressed/mitigated as such.
    The unforgivable error that so-called environmentalists are making nowadays is combining these dire issues with AGW, ultimately resulting in taking the attention off of what’s truly important and blending it into the background. Your recent study, unfortunately, plays right into that propaganda/funding cashcow.
    I don’t think the obvious result needs to be pointed out, but I will take the liberty to do so anyway :
    By blending in the real issues (environmental protection) with questionable issues (AGW), the former will ultimately get ignored in the overall scheme of things resulting in absolutely nothing being done about it until the so-called top priority (CO2 reduction) gets taken care of first. Billions of dollars have now been redirected to the study of AGW from what used to be directed towards cleaning up our act.
    All you have to do is look at the current political issues/debates going on to understand the point I’m making… CO2 reduction by way of carbon tax/cap and trade are government top priorities.
    If you’re truly concerned about the environment, why waste valuable funding resources studying “how to get the global warming message across to specific demographics” ??
    By exerting so much energy and funding into such a study, the message you’re sending out is that you’re more concerned about global warming (and hence everyone else should be too) than you are of the actual environment.
    Environmental cleanup, anthropogenic climate change… please stop confusing the two.

  185. Smokey,
    I could spend time providing the “quantifiable testable facts” for you but I feel that this would not satisfy you. You are obviously very positive about the future of the planet!
    I am curious to know if there are any environmental issues you are concerned about?
    What do you (and others) think of this article on planetary boundaries that appeared recently in Nature (perhaps this has already been discussed).
    http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/index.html
    Full article available here (left hand column):
    http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/tippingtowardstheunknown/thenineplanetaryboundaries.4.1fe8f33123572b59ab80007039.html
    As for Bernie, Jockdownsouth and Andrew I will try and respond to comments.

  186. Gary Haq said at 4:19 am
    Thank you to everyone …..
    It is clear from many of the comments posted(,) that despite the scientific evidence(,) that most people here think that climate change is not influenced by human activity and that this theory is basically a load of twaddle.

    So Grasshopper, is it scientifically evident or is it theory? And next time before you shoot off your mouth, Grasshopper, I suggest you ASK someone (like Anthony) that would be “in the know” about a subject such as this site and the general consensus therein. I’m sure in this case he would have told you that most here KNOW that almost 7 billion humans have some impact on the Earth’s environment, including the weather and further that the discussion here is almost always to what degree.
    ………
    As an environmentalist I am obviously concerned about the human impact on the environment.
    “environmentalist” means NOTHING. A title, whether self-conferred or sheepskin degreed, is no evidence of either intelligence or specific knowledge. As IS clearly evidenced by your next statement:
    Even if we ignore climate change,
    What do you mean “we”, Grasshopper? Nobody is ignoring it here! (And you are a VERY late comer to the party on the issue of “human impact on the environment”.)
    we still have the problem of overpopulation, depleting natural resources, loss of biodiversity and general environmental degradation.
    “overpopulation” is a non-starter as has been pointed out here many other times. It’s a “distribution” issue. Period!
    “depleting natural resources” WHAT natural resources? And so what? EVERY time we think we’re running out of something, we find more. Now of course sometime “environmentalist” like you in collusion with “bent” politicians prevent us from “using” it, but then just like when we really do run low on something, we progress, we morph and create a new “way” and discover a new resource. (I’ll give uranium as an example.)
    As we have NO idea how much we DON’T know about the totality of life on this planet and hence the true “diversity” thereof, there is no way we can even calculate a “loss of biodiversity” much less know if it’s losing or gaining. The “bio” on this plant has been expanding and contracting since the beginning of bio time. Less than 5% of the ocean has been explored. Less than 1% of the microbes (as best we can determine) have been identified.
    As far as looking at anything produced by the UN, the most politically corrupt organization the world has ever known – YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!
    There is still a need to examine our high consuming way of life and to become more efficient in the use of natural resources. …… Different target audiences require different approaches. Our report addresses the approaches used to engage older demographic groups …..
    For that you get a second – YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING! YOU, a forty something are going to tell someone that went through the depression and WWII on how to be “efficient in the use of natural resources”???
    Listen to this last bit of advice Grasshopper, before you get on the bus: You need to be a LOT dryer behind the ear before you start telling me and my generation about ANYTHING, much less about how to be efficient. We invented it, Grasshopper and your nothing but a Johnny-come-lately. We’ve been there and have the hat and T-shirt to prove it. And then wrote the book!
    All that said, welcome to the party. You are a good looking young man and I’m sure you mean well. Just be careful. In this virtual world (especially on WUWT) you never know who you’re pontificating AT…

  187. kfg : August 26, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    Got it. Hope they will tone it down before moving on to snap, crackle, or (horror) pop. ☺

  188. The issue I have with Gary Haq’s piece is really not the targeting of 50 to 64 year olds – even though it always feels funny to be singled out. The more basic issue is that we are being objectified. Gary and his friends at SEI plan on manipulating and controlling our lives. This is true whether we are 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 years old.
    I was sufficiently irritated by the presumptuousness of Gary’s original piece together with the SEI and its agenda that I decide to take a closer look at his 2010 SEI report “Towards a Zero Carbon Vision for UK Transport”. http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/towards-zero-carbon-vision-uk-transport-2010.pdf
    The first thing to note is that this report is funded by Greenpeace. Normally this would be enough for me to ignore it, but I decided to plough through it. Please note that I am, like Gary, for clean air, safe roads and a wholesome environment.
    What does Gary have in store for us? Rather than list out all the “stupid” ideas in the report, I tried to find a couple that IMO epitomize both the nature of the recommendations and the undoubted mindset of the authors.
    May I suggest you put down your coffee. I do not want to be the cause of any shorted out keyboards.
    The first major theme that jumps out is the “big government syndrome” of we know what people need better than they do, we can ignore current patterns of personal preferences and decisions and we can make whatever outrageous and unrealistic claims we feel like:
    “A clear duty should be imposed on every local authority to double the urban density from approximately 40 people per hectare to 80 people per hectare. This doubling of density would reduce urban car travel measured in VKT by 37 per cent (pers. comm. Kenworthy, 15 June 2009).” (Page 45)
    What does this actually mean? Given that 1 hectare = 2.5 acres and assuming 1 house has approx. 4 occupants on average, this density requirement that means roughly 20 houses for 2.5 acres. In US terms that essentially means one 3BR house on 1/10 of an acre. What percentage of the population really wants this type of density as a planning goal? Note that we are not talking about city planning here. We are talking about “every local authority”!!
    Now think about that 37 per cent reduction in miles travelled if we doubled the density. This logic/math is so fuzzy it is “really stupid”. It totally defies logic – even if you assume that all this means is 37% of the travel of those 80 people who now are squashed into 1 hectare as opposed to spread out over 2 hectares. This defies basic notions of why, where and when people travel – and probably is a gross misinterpretation of the fact that 40% of auto trips are local. More generally, the turnover of inventory of the housing stock is very slow – approximately 0.08% p.a. or 1250 years for the UK’s 25 million homes at the current demolition rate of 20,000 per year. (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/898622987-242745/section~content=a779030439~db=all~start=779030551~fulltext=713240929~dontcount=true) Such a change in zoning would have a minuscule effect on travel even over a 40 year period – approx 1% reduction in miles travelled if we believe the 37% number, which I dont.
    The second major theme in Gary’s and SEI’s vision for our future is our time and convenience does not count. Their recommendations ignore the value we place on our time. (Until now this was most visible in doctor’s offices and the timing of road repairs.)
    Example 1:
    “Speeds will be limited to a maximum of 20mph/30kph in all residential areas and through villages to support the rapid take up of walking and cycling and to create high quality living environments. Speeds on motorways and dual carriageways will be limited to 60mph to reduce CO2 emissions and to encourage the take-up of eco-driving techniques.” (Page 3 )
    Speed limits on motorways and divided highways in the UK are currently 70 MPH or an increase of 17% in travel time. Regular cyclists can manage 20 MPH.
    Example 2:
    “Tourism in 2050 will still be important but a combination of higher fares and air traffic delays will reduce the demand for flying and increase the number of holidays taken in the UK. There is evidence that
    holidays involving personal development, child-centred activities, outdoor activities and artistic activities are already on the increase and this process will accelerate putting more emphasis on what is done rather than on where it is done. Holidays in the EU will still be popular and will be accessible by much improved train services, including overnight trains, which provide a journey experience that is also part of the holiday and will steadily supplant air travel.” (Page 3)
    Notice the patronizing attitude and the presumptuousness. In addition, the authors clearly have not travelled with their own or other people’s kids for any distance!
    In sum, yes this was a visioning paper and one should allow a certain amount of freedom and out-of-the-box thinking – but the recommendations are thoroughly unrealistic and run counter to all existing discretionary behavior patterns. It denies the reality of what individuals choose to do when they are free to so. This, of course, does not worry Gary Haq et al because they intend to change our behavior whether we want to or not. Now you understand what Human Ecology is all about.

  189. Johan Rockström is a fake, SEI is a fake, Tällberg & B. Ekman is a fake, SMHI is fake, Rummukainen is a fake, and more and by ‘fake’ I mean people or so called ‘scientists’ who only follow the money [tax payers money] – only!
    These people could surely ‘get hi & on’ to ‘prove’ the cubic form of a circle, providing the ‘correct’ computer model… Gosh, is this World really going totally weird…?
    Cheers from Sweden
    //TJ

  190. wayne says: “. . . pop. ”
    Jeeeeez! I hate when that happens; especially if my head’s involved. Styrofoam beanie ain’t worth shit then.
    ThomasJ says: “. . . is this World really going totally weird…?”
    Yo, this is the Old Fart’s thread, and you’re obviously new here.

  191. Gary Haq,
    It looks like you are getting your chance to engage in discussions about climate change with us baby boomers and older people right here at WUWT, and you’re doing it with minimal carbon impact.
    Can you give an example of a climate related weather event?
    Your statement “Smokey, I could spend time providing the “quantifiable testable facts” for you but I feel that this would not satisfy ” is actually about as detailed and explanatory of an answer one can get for ‘what is the scientific evidence of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas causing a greenhouse effect?’. Why isn’t there a quantifiable testable physical explanation?
    You end your Yorkshire Post piece with “Whatever doubt we may have about climate science, or whether climate change is really happening, a fundamental question remains – are we willing to gamble with our children’s future on this planet?”
    What influence do you think you can have on climate, and how do you measure it?. How will it benefit children? How much will they benefit? Will it make them better off than having fixed a structurally deficient bridge, or having refrigeration, heat or air conditioning? Will they eat better?
    Dave

  192. Gary Haq says at 1:46 pm:
    “Smokey,
    I could spend time providing the “quantifiable testable facts” for you but I feel that this would not satisfy you.”
    Disregard how you “feel”. Let’s see those measurable, testable facts. You say you’ve got ’em. Show us.

  193. P Wilson says:
    August 27, 2010 at 11:59 am
    “It seems that the Institute upholds the stereotype by targeting older people as being a case apart, requiring special propaganda.”
    They could try SPEAKING LOUDER and S-L-O-W-E-R but propaganda is still propaganda.
    @Gary Haq
    I’m with Smokey: “Disregard how you “feel”. Let’s see those measurable, testable facts. You say you’ve got ‘em. Show us.”
    My little patch of heaven was covered by shallow seas and by several glaciers. That’s climate change. Wake me up when we reach temperatures warmer than we’ve ever seen before. The geologists will let you know when that happens.
    And if you’re worried about resources, read this.
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
    The velocity of recycling stuff will have to pick up, but the earth can support a much larger population than is currently assumed where the assumptions assume stasis or limited change.

  194. While I understand there is a natural dividing line for those 50 or older, the baby Boomers are actually 46-64. The generation spans those born 1946-1964. I wonder why they cut out about a quarter of the boomers.

  195. I guess I start with a double strike against – I’m 72 and I live in York! Please don’t take too much notice of the output of quirky departments in second and third rate UK Universities. They are largely populated by people who can’t get a proper job and prefer to live off government funding for their weird studies. For the 90% of us in the UK who are not in academia, politics or the media, the stuff coming out of SEI at the U of Y is as hilarious to us as it is to you in the US and the rest of the world.
    In spite of clowns like these, the UK is not a bad place to grow older. Once you pass 65, taxation is reasonable and fair. Public services are OK, cities and towns are scaled so that walking and cycling are good ways to get around, Public transport is fine – I can get to London 200 miles away in 1 hour 50 minutes by train and I can work as I travel. Much of Europe and beyond is equally accessible, by high-speed train or new, efficient airlines. Medical care is very good to excellent and is largely free. Life expectancy is about one year longer than the US.
    I lived and worked in the SF Bay Area for 20 years so I can make balanced comparisons with the UK. California was exciting and full of opportunity for young people in the 1960s and 70s. 45 years on the UK and Europe has a lot to offer.
    Regarding SEI and U of Y, when La Nina takes hold and the Dalton Minimum 2 gets going these young ‘scientists’ may be able to help to figure out how to survive long, bitterly cold winters and grow enough food to feed the world in shorter growing seasons.
    Best wishes to you all.

  196. I am intrigued about Gary’s quantifiable testable facts. Bring ’em on. I am absolutely willing to be convinced of CAGW if the quantifiable testable facts support the theory.

  197. Global warming alarmists are moving away from CO2 being the main cause of global warming (as well as being a ‘dangerous pollutant’) because right minded people have pointed out how essential it is for life and plant growth and how insignificant its concentration in air is compared with that of moisture. Instead at every opportunity (Gary Haq being no exception) state how much the more potent ‘greenhouse gas’ methane, is on the rise. I would like to point out that the concentration of methane in dry air is 1.5 ppm compared with 380 ppm CO2. Air is not dry of course and has a moisture concentration 100 x greater than CO2.

  198. Bernie,
    Our report is a serious piece of scientific research based on evidence that
    seeks to develop a more sensitive policy response from government and
    citizens to the pressing problems of climate change. Our starting point is UK legislation that says we must reduce GHG by 80% by 2050. We agree.
    Our contribution has been to point out that citizens and government have to work
    together to achieve this objective and further this is likely to be more
    successful if we explore the views and aspiration of different population
    sub-groups. We have talked to older people about this and they have been
    very forthcoming indeed with views, insights and good ideas about how we can
    all work together to achieve this 80% reduction. We have then captured
    these insights and summarised them in a number of recommendations to assist
    us all to achieve what our government has said we should achieve in our
    greenhouse gas reduction ambitions.

  199. Gary Haq,
    The problem is that you believe assertions that there is scientific evidence of AGW and the predictions of CAGW are supported by science. I find this belief to be untenable, since there is no science to be found that actually supports these assertions.
    Dave

  200. Gary Haq says:
    Our report is a serious piece of scientific research based on evidence…
    Once again you claim to have “evidence,” but your post above is as substance-free as your previous comments. Why are you prevaricating? Please re-read my post at August 28, 2010 at 5:29 am, and provide the empirical facts you claim to have in your possession.
    No cut ‘n’ paste, please, just simple facts simply stated. Make your case using verifiable, testable evidence, observations and experiments. Anything else is pseudo-science, and therefore is only conjecture.
    I am looking forward to discussing any empirical facts you can produce showing convincingly that climate catastrophe is imminent and due primarily to CO2 — which would be the only reason to deconstruct modern society by reducing GHG by your 80% target. That would result in atmospheric CO2 being only about 80 ppmv.

  201. Gary,
    It is next to impossible to justify your work in this thread. You are targeting groups that are more experienced with myth busting and sorting truth from political agenda. If you really want to help boomers transition into retirement, suggest they need to reduce their consumption to a level they can maintain in retirement, with the resulting savings. Don’t waste good money on carbon credits or offsets that will have no effect on climate.

  202. Gary Haq says: “Our report is a serious piece of scientific research based on evidence that
    seeks to develop a more sensitive policy response from government… ”
    That does not sound scientific. “…based on evidence that
    seeks… ” is either cherry picking to satisfy your seeking or since evidence is just evidence. It does not seek.

  203. Gary:
    At least you are willing to hang in and respond to criticism without resorting to ad hominems.
    I have read the reports. I have run through SEI’s carbon footprint calculator. It is hard to be anything but unimpressed by SEI’s methodologies since they are not describe in any detail. As I asked before, how did you identify the behaviors and decisions that are discretionary. You also completely fail to provide any realistic estimate of the cost of all this social engineering nor of the appalling history of prior efforts at this type of planned community building.
    As to the quantification – I pointed out above that some of your calculations are so unrealistic as to be truly stupid. You do not seem to have a clue as to the size and replacement rate of the housing stock.
    Your so called solution requires the imposition on people of planning requirements and lifestyle preferences that most people when given the choice would run away from. Your preference to avoid suburban sprawl carries no more weight than my preference to have room to breathe and to avoid living cheek by jowl with my neighbors. Your notion of community is not the same as mine. Nor would this density requirement stand up in a properly run focus group or properly designed survey. You clearly believe that it is legitimate for government to intrude into people’s lives – except most likely when it intrudes on your particular preferred lifestyle habits.
    Your willingness to engage is a positive – but that in itself does not strengthen your arguments. The case would be far more persuasive if you started with a flat out commitment to a massive renewal of base power generation capacity via nuclear technology. At least then I would know that you were serious. Without such a commitment it is too easy to dismiss your recommendations as “pie in the sky,” delusional or fascist central planning. A dramatic reduction or stabilization in electricity costs would do wonders for reducing GHG.

  204. Gary Haq says:
    August 29, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    Bernie,
    Our report is a serious piece of scientific research based on evidence that
    seeks to develop a more sensitive policy response from government and
    citizens to the pressing problems of climate change. Our starting point is UK legislation that says we must reduce GHG by 80% by 2050. We agree.
    _______________
    Gary,
    How can a serious scientific study have as its starting point “legislation” with which you agree? The politicians have spoken! That’s your quantifiable testable evidence???? Surely you realize that legislation is not evidence of CAGW. You were the one who spoke of having quantifiable testable evidence. Where is it? Before you start suggesting draconian measures to change the habits, lifestyles, standard of living and range of choices for any group of people you might want to verify the reality of the premise upon which the alarmism rests. Think about this. If you are unable to cite real quantifiable testable evidence of the premise, is it not possible, yea even probable, perhaps even likely, and maybe even sure, that the premise is false? Oh and “we agree” is not cutting it. Consensus is not evidence. And please do not refer me to Real Climate as a cop out. I’ve tried to make sense of that propaganda engine. Nothing there is quantifiable or testable.
    You were shown here to be wrong about sea level dangers. Where did you get that crazy idea about Tuvalu being swamped? Do you trust those same sources on other issues? You were duped, and because you were duped you tried to use that argument to show us the danger of CAGW. In other words you were guilty of perpetuating a false notion about this issue, and you have been caught out on it. This should make you a little more cautious about the sources of your beliefs. Of course if you accept legislation as evidence, there is no hope for you.

  205. Gary and all who post here should always keep in mind that all law implies the use of force against some individual or group of individuals to either take some action or refrain from some action. Government is the legal agent of that force. Every law implies that if one continues to resist one will be imprisoned or killed.
    So in almost every case, herding individuals by law is a bad idea, though one is free to entertain oneself with whatever ideas, just do not advocate the imposition of those ideas by force of law.
    If something is economical to do, it will happen if some want it but if it is not wanted does not give one the right to have it imposed on some persons. So Gary, please try to keep off our backs by breaking your “helping others” trance. Some of are getting exhausted and may just “go Galt” before long.

  206. Gary,
    “Our contribution has been to point out that citizens and government have to work
    together to achieve this objective and further this is likely to be more
    successful if we explore the views and aspiration of different population
    sub-groups. ”
    I thought that as you are collecting ‘views and aspirations’ that you may be interested in mine as I rapidly aproach 50.
    Your use of citizen to describe me sends shivers down my spine. I am an individual, have always been and will always be. The more that you try and turn me into a number the more that I will rebel. The whole article smacks of eletism and your extreme desire for me to change my lifestyle to meet your requirements to make you feel good about yourself.
    I have no qualms at all with your beliefs and if you wish to return your family to a pre industrial living quality that is your perogative and I aplaud your desire if not your reasoning. I generally state the same to those of a religious nature that try to hoist their views and opinions upon my family.
    No matter how much you may protest, this society of ours is full to the brim of individuals and is the better for it. Once the ‘collective’ sets in then society will be doomed, as free thought and speech and the ability to make individual descisions are restricted then society as a whole will be diminished. We are by nature animals who have evolved from pack, or herd, mentality into this complex collection we call society and part of the evolving process is the ability to process information and make rational descisions on an idividual basis and believe me the older you get the more individual you get.
    As far as your views and my retirement plans are concerned this will probably be the only time that they will ever appear in the same sentence. Once you realise that your ‘good intentions’ are not new, that this type of indoctrination has been tried and failed many times before then perhaps the futility of your endeavour will become apparent.
    We are by our very nature intrepid adventurers and technology is hung on our tool belt next to innovation, restricting our growth with energy quotas has the same effect as caging a wild animal, we become a tamed and futile beast.
    If you want to positively effect a change in the way that we utilise natural resources then put your efforts into providing alternative energy sources that work rather than issueing negativity, doom and gloom.

  207. Guys, I am one of the elderly (born 1941) but not a codger. My credentials – I am physicist, still active.
    All of you except Gary Haq apparently deny AGW, maybe because of the errors and flaws in AR4 and the presumed bias of the IPCC. Smokey is asking Gary for facts. The facts are presented in the hundreds of peer reviewed papers by top scientists underlying the AR4. If your denial is to be scientifically sound you have to provide arguments that all these papers are flawed. Take an example: Ice core measurements indicate that average CO2 concentrations were around 280 ppm 25 million years before industrial revolution. Now they are at 380 ppm with tendency increasing. Similar evidence exists for NH4. Do you believe that this has no impact on climate or can you reject the hypothesis that there is an impact?
    Scepticism is good as long as it does not lead to inaction when evidence for the risk of AGW presented. The arguments presented in this ‘debate’ are mostly emotional and do not sound very scientific. I am sorry but this blog is more an exchange of opinions than a discussion of a serious issue.
    On the basis of current scientific evidence I am afraid there is a substantial risk that climate change is happening and may lead to significant adverse impacts on mankind, perhaps not in this or the next generation but under BAU in the long-term. Everybody has the obligation to contribute that this risk does not become a reality.

  208. Peter Panther September 1, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    It is not that we think the data revealed in the published scientific literature is not right. What is wrong is the IPCC has promoted subjective research to support a political agenda and that literature has been selected. I have looked at the data using accepted statistical techniques to avoid bias and come to different conclusions. Read http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf and http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf to get my interpretations and conclusions.

  209. Peter:
    I will just speak for myself, but you have misread my issues with Gary Haq’s study.
    The issues are definitively not that CO2 is a GHG, that burning fossil fuels increases CO2 or even that temperatures may are increasing. It is, it does and they are. The scientific issues with Gary’s claim of CAGW are around sensitivity and the rate of increase in temperature. There are significant counter arguments most especially the role of clouds and the role of feedback. Invoking the precautionary principle is scientifically irrelevant. So you have created somewhat of a straw argument.
    The issue with Gary is both his approach to sizing the problem, the political implications of the proposed solutions, the viability of the proposed solutions and the consideration of the obvious alternative solutions. The kneejerk rush to social engineering solutionsis simply not justified and as you can see creates deep resistance.

  210. Fred,
    I looked at your calculations. What I am missing is a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis and a careful discussion on why the results of the IPCC differ from yours when both calculations start from the same data. Why is a bias in their calculations and not in yours? The hint to ‘subjective research to support a political agenda’ is not enough. Do you believe that hundreds of contributors to the AR4 and previous IPCC reports and the reviewers have manipulated data in order to influence policies? I don’t.
    Another question: If you are really persuaded of your results: why don’t you publish them in a peer-reviewed journal such as Science, Nature or another one?
    Cheers
    Peter

  211. Peter Panther September 2, 2010 at 8:49 am
    It seems to me that the statistical techniques that I used show that climate is not measurably sensitive to atmospheric CO2 levels (lost in the variability of atmospheric water) and that atmospheric CO2 levels are much more sensitive to natural cycles than anthropogenic emission rates. As to peer review publishing, I haven’t published in years and in my publishing days Nature and Science were not considered peer review journals. We published in scientific society journals usually after presentations at symposia. One of my earlier publications was on using statistics in research. You can find some of my publications by searching “Fred H. Haynie”+climate or +statistics or +economics or +thermodynamics +corrosion. Publishing on the internet allows anyone searching for truth to review and be their on judge as to it’s truthfullness.

  212. Bernie,
    Thank you for clarifying my potential misreading of your issues with Gary’s study. I am grateful that you accept that CO2 is a GHG and temperatures are increasing (or did you mean ‘may be’ because you typed ‘may are’). This is progress because Fred tries to persuade us by his calculations that temperatures are decreasing since 10,000 years (see his last reply). Now you raise the issue of sensitivity and if CO2 growth increases global temperatures at the estimated rate. You mention cloud cover. If I remember correctly modern meteorological models consider albedo and therefore, to the extent of our knowledge the role of clouds. Do you think IPCC made a mistake in their models? Or manipulated them? Or do you have developed better models? The next issue you mention is feedback. That is certainly an important point but please what feedback out of the many potential, possible and /or probable feedbacks you mean? Do you have got realistic models for feedback(s)? If not how do you know the magnitude of feedbacks? Any prediction can only be as good as our understanding of atmospheric processes are, and if you have no better models than those currently applied you criticism is scientifically unsound. With your next statement you jump from one idea to another: “Invoking the precautionary principle is scientifically irrelevant”. With all due respect, this statement is a capital mistake. The larger the uncertainty of a prediction is due to to our poor understanding of atmospheric processes, the more important is a judicious application of the precautionary principle. I wonder if you really understand what risk of some adverse impact and precautionary principle mean.
    If I have supposedly “created somewhat of a straw argument” you have responded with illogical arguments based on mental leaps.
    I also wonder if you really understood the issues related to Gary’s approach. The approach is about public awareness rising and stakeholder participation in contributing to a solution of the CAWG challenge. This has nothing to do with social engineering. Apparently you refuse his solution but advocate “the obvious alternative solutions”. Do you mean alternative solutions on the basis that CAGW is existent or that there is no challenge of CAGW? If the latter, Gary is not the right person to attack.
    Finally, verbal injuries such as “kneejerk rush” and other gaffes voiced in this thread have nothing to do with a discussion contribution, which pretends to be scientific. The resistance of yourself and others may be “deep” but does not appear really substantiated – at least in this thread.

  213. Fred,
    Whether Science or Nature were peer reviewed journals in times of your professional activity is irrelevant. They are peer reviewed now as are many others. Why don’t you try to publish your results now? Are you afraid to swim against the current and expose your results to collegues? Publishing in the internet is the weakest form of publication and does not really reach top scientists. Moreover, remember, on the internet your publications are in the company of the greatest rubbish.
    Btw, sensitivity/uncertainty analysis refers to the sensitivity/uncertainty of the models you used. The question this analysis addresses is how different assumptions, different parameter inputs, different statistical characteristics do change the results. Did you e.g. check if the statistical assumptions you used such as normal distribution of the data in your regression were justified?
    Best
    Peter

  214. Peter,
    You apparantly have not done a good review of my analysis with and open mind and have misquoted conclusions out of context. I don’t think anyone who has looked at the ice core data would claim that it was colder around 10,000 years ago or that there has been a steady increase in temperature since then. The long term trend has been decreasing since at peak. There have been many cycles of different wave lengths and magnitude since then which cannot be attributed to mans’ burning of fossil fuels. The present rising cycle started with the LIA and not with the beginning of the industrial age. Natural cycles like the PDO and el-nino affect weather and the average of weather we call climate. We are presently on a down slope of a about a twenty year cycle. That cycle is riding on top of an up slope of about A 308 year cycle that will peak some where around 2090. Neither of us will be around to see that peak but we can observe the change in slope as what ever measure of climate you choose goes through these many natural cycles and does not follow the exponential rise in emissions.

  215. Isn’t there enough proof on the zero quality/sense of the so called ‘peer review’?
    It seems as if [especially on the other side of the Atlantic, from here] common sense
    isn’t that common anymore with you in the US. Can’t say this is not the same here in Europe, however I get the impression that there are plenty more common sense regarding calls on the so called ‘climate science’ outside the US, ie. in Australia, NZ, Finland, Norway, Germany, Japan, China, and more countries. Sorry to admit, that my country, Sweden, cannot be included in that list… 🙁
    Brdgs from Sweden
    //TJ

  216. Peter:
    For me, responses to blog posts are always fraught with typos and incomplete thoughts. I apologize if it made reading my comments more difficult. That said, I think you continue to misread this thread which is not about the science of global warming (though some comments may raise that issue) but SEI’s and Gary’s approach to public policies that are meant to somehow address it.
    I am assuming that you have read the three pieces that I referenced earlier:
    One of Gary’s Yorkshire Post pieces – http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Gary-Haq-Meltdown-cannot-hide.6066390.jp,
    the SEI piece on 50 to 64 year olds (http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Future/ClimateChangeandOver50s.pdf)
    the SEI piece on Zero Carbon. ( http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/towards-zero-carbon-vision-uk-transport-2010.pdf )
    Peter, you say:
    “The larger the uncertainty of a prediction is due to to our poor understanding of atmospheric processes, the more important is a judicious application of the precautionary principle.”
    How does that logically follow? If we do not understand, we do not understand. What is a judicious application of the precautionary principle? How can you tell when the invoking of the precautionary principle doesn’t simply stem primarily from political opposition? What would make it injudicious? Since I do not see any major consequences in the next 50 years from BAU and I am willing to bet that our energy technology is very likely to change dramatically in that period, due to market forces and new technologies, the precautionary principle as embodied in Gary’s policy prescriptions is in my opinion “injudicious”. Finding cheaper and cleaner sources of energy is warranted on its own merits.
    You also continue by saying:
    “I wonder if you really understand what risk of some adverse impact and precautionary principle mean.”
    I am not quite clear what you are saying. If you mean do I understand the impact of the possible melting of one or both polar icecaps on sea level. Yes, I certainly do. Have I seen evidence that this is in fact occurring currently at a rate that requires the kind of actions proposed by Gary? – Absolutely not.
    As to the precautionary principle, the last time I checked it has nothing to do with science and a lot to do with public policy prescriptions, hence the accuracy of my assertion that invoking the precautionary principle is scientifically irrelevant.
    As for clouds and feedback, etc., please take a look at Roy Spencer’s most recent paper: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf. As a physicist you should have no difficulty with it. One conclusion he draws is that “The only times that there is clear evidence of feedback in global satellite data, that feedback is strongly negative.” This suggests that the sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 may be closer to 1 rather than the GCM models which assume something closer to 3.
    You go on to say:
    “I also wonder if you really understood the issues related to Gary’s approach. The approach is about public awareness rising and stakeholder participation in contributing to a solution of the CAWG challenge. This has nothing to do with social engineering. Apparently you refuse his solution but advocate “the obvious alternative solutions”. Do you mean alternative solutions on the basis that CAGW is existent or that there is no challenge of CAGW? If the latter, Gary is not the right person to attack.”
    This statement makes me think that you have not read Gary’s Zero Carbon piece which is what I was highlighting. What exactly would you call a requirement that local authorities double current housing density requirements? The public policy proposals in that piece are social engineering under any definition – moreover raising “public awareness” can also be social engineering.
    As to alternative solutions, I mean the aggressive expansion of nuclear energy. This is warranted as much by energy and economic security concerns as it is by CAGW. It is remarkable how the nuclear solution is almost never highlighted even though its use by France has shown it to be a great way to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
    Finally, you may see the IPCC as some neutral and objective body in this debate. Recent developments indicate that your faith may be somewhat misplaced.

  217. Peter,
    I’m sorry that you feel you are not qualified to review my work as it is without it being reviewed and approved by a “team of climatetoligist”. I have tried to get some of the team to review it by commenting and posting my URLs on their blogs. They moderate out my comments. I think I know more about proper use of statistical techniques than the members of the “team”. Yes, I considered other than normal distributions, multivariant statistics (independent variables that are not truly fixed), as well non-linear and interaction relationships. I would like to see someone use these techniques, improve on them, and publish in a reputable journal. I have a comfortable retirement after doing enviromental research for over twenty years at EPA: where one of the requirements was to publish your results in peer-reviewed journals so that they could become part of law required criteria documents. I published a lot and reviewed a lot of papers and authored several chapters in criteria documents. I’m not concerned about my reputation with the team or it’s followers. I’m concerned about political decisions being made on unsound agenda driven science. If you have a basic understanding of the science and have an objective mindset you can learn enough on blogs like this to sort the good from the bad.

  218. #garyhaq says:
    August 27, 2010 at 7:25 am
    A message for Sam and Bernie and others,
    You have a right to disagree with my opinons on this issue – a bit of scepticism is healthy!
    However, I think it is below the belt to get personal and undertake this character assassination with you critique of my academic record and abilities and imply that I am stupid because I do not share your opinon.
    _______________________________________________________
    It is not the fact you do not share our opinion about climate that is the problem it is that you are trying to manipulate people into accepting Agenda 21 or Global Governance by the UN that is the problem.
    Thanks to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture locavores, organic consumers, pet owners and farmers here in the USA have recently had a crash course on the use of the Delphi Technique by those who in the US government who are still trying to manipulate us.
    Prior to that while in college we were exposed to The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ or its off shoots like Students for a Democratic Society.
    “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” ” – H.L. Mencken
    You Mr Gary Haq are not trying to “save the earth for future generations” you are knowingly or unknowingly helping the tyrants who wish to rule our world without any input from those they would rule.

  219. Peter Panther says:
    “Take an example: Ice core measurements indicate that average CO2 concentrations were around 280 ppm 25 million years before industrial revolution. Now they are at 380 ppm with tendency increasing. Similar evidence exists for NH4. Do you believe that this has no impact on climate or can you reject the hypothesis that there is an impact?”
    Peter, you really, really need to learn how the scientific method works. You would then understand that you’re making an argumentum ad ignorantium — a logical fallacy based on the misguided belief that because you don’t have the answer, then the culprit simply must be CO2. For all you know, the culprit might be postal rates.
    You don’t seem to understand that skeptics have nothing to prove. That’s how the scientific method works: the promoters of the CAGW conjecture have the entire burden of showing that it explains reality better than the null hypothesis. They have failed.
    Planet Earth is continually falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture; as the harmless and beneficial trace gas CO2 rises, the planet is ignoring it. Who should we believe? You? Or our lying eyes and planet Earth?
    If you believe you have empirical, testable evidence showing that a measurable temperature rise is attributable to the less than one CO2 human-emitted molecule out of every 34 emitted by the planet in total, then stand and deliver: post your evidence. If you can, you will be the first to be able to show real world evidence supporting CAGW beliefs, and you will be on the short list for the [now worthless] Nobel prize.
    When searching for some kind, any kind of actual evidence, keep in mind that computer models are not evidence; and pal-reviewed papers are not evidence, and keep in mind that the IPCC has yet to produce a single example of testable evidence showing a measurable T increase per Pg of CO2 emitted.
    And as usual, Gary Haq posts his completely substance-free conjecture. His comments show that he has little technical understanding of the subject. Haq opines:

    Our report is a serious piece of scientific research based on evidence that seeks to develop a more sensitive policy response from government and
    citizens to the pressing problems of climate change. Our starting point is UK legislation that says we must reduce GHG by 80% by 2050. We agree.

    Haq is astonishingly naive and irresponsible to even suggest that society should — or could — reduce trace gases such as CO2 by 80%. That would put CO2 at only 78 ppmv, killing the biosphere well before that minuscule level is reached.
    Mr Haq is a certifiable lunatic if he believes, with zero evidence, that the West will destroy its standard of living without the slightest proof that such an insane reduction of a beneficial trace gas would be copied by China, Russia, Brazil, India and a hundred smaller countries — whose leaders can’t believe their great good fortune that technophobes like Haq have any influence at all.

  220. Smokey:
    Nicely said. Alas I fear it is not just Haq who is naive and irresponsible but the majority of those at SEI, judging by the collective foolishness displayed in their policy prescriptions. I am reminded of March and Olsen’s description of the Garbage Can Theory of Decision Making (http://www.amazon.com/Ambiguity-Choice-Organizations-James-March/dp/8200019608) wherein they describe one dysfunctional contributor to decision-making as “a solution in search of a problem.”
    Also, there are a couple of things Peter Panther has said, e.g., asking about whether Fred’s data meets the normal distribution required for regression, that makes me question just what he means when he says he is a “physicist”. Certainly his style of argument does not indicate anything but a passing familiarity with the details of climate science.

  221. Hi Bernie,
    I take the liberty to insert my comments to your suada no 247 in your text in CAPITALS.
    247. Bernie says:
    September 2, 2010 at 12:08 pm
    Peter:
    For me, responses to blog posts are always fraught with typos and incomplete thoughts. I apologize if it made reading my comments more difficult. That said, I think you continue to misread this thread which is not about the science of global warming (though some comments may raise that issue) but SEI’s and Gary’s approach to public policies that are meant to somehow address it.
    I am assuming that you have read the three pieces that I referenced earlier:
    One of Gary’s Yorkshire Post pieces – http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Gary-Haq-Meltdown-cannot-hide.6066390.jp,
    the SEI piece on 50 to 64 year olds (http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Future/ClimateChangeandOver50s.pdf)
    the SEI piece on Zero Carbon. ( http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/towards-zero-carbon-vision-uk-transport-2010.pdf ) THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER.
    Peter, you say:
    “The larger the uncertainty of a prediction is due to to our poor understanding of atmospheric processes, the more important is a judicious application of the precautionary principle.”
    How does that logically follow? If we do not understand, we do not understand. POOR UNDERSTANDING IS NOT NO UNDERSTANDING. APPARENTLY YOU MEAN THAT ONLY IF WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT WE SHOULD ACT. THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS ATTITUDE. What is a judicious application of the precautionary principle? TAKE GRADMA STRUDL’S PRINCIPLE: NOT TOO LITTLE, NOT TOO MUCH. APPLY THIS IF YOU CAN TO JUDICIOUS APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE HAS WORKED WELL IN AIR POLLUTION, E.G. IN INTRODUCING UNLEADED PETROL, REDUCING THE SULPHUR CONTENT OF DIESEL ALTHOUGH THE HEALTH IMPACTS COULD NEVER BE PROVEN IN THE WAY A MATHEMATICAL PROOF IS PERFORMED. How can you tell when the invoking of the precautionary principle doesn’t simply stem primarily from political opposition? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? What would make it injudicious? Since I do not see any major consequences in the next 50 years from BAU. NONSENSE, WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF THIS? HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH A PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE EXCEPT IF YOU READ THE TEA LEAVES, BASICALLY UNSCIENTIFIC. and I am willing to bet that our energy technology is very likely to change dramatically in that period I AGREE BUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEPLETION OF FOSSIL FUELS IS A DRIVING FORCE FOR THAT AS WELL, due to market forces and new technologies, the precautionary principle as embodied in Gary’s policy prescriptions is in my opinion “injudicious”. YOUR OPINION. MINE IS THAT A CHANGE OF OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS BAU IS NECESSARY AND IT IS ALREADY STARTING IN EU-EUROPE. Finding cheaper and cleaner sources of energy is warranted on its own merits I AGREE..
    You also continue by saying:
    “I wonder if you really understand what risk of some adverse impact and precautionary principle mean.”
    I am not quite clear what you are saying. I AGREE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO KNOW WHAT RISK ANALYSIS AND RISK MANAGEMENT IS ABOUT. If you mean do I understand the impact of the possible melting of one or both polar icecaps on sea level. IT IS NOT ONLY THE MELTING OF POLAR ICECAPS WHICH IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT PROBABLE AND EVEN OCCURING NOW BUT THE MELTING OF GLACIERS ALL OVER THE CONTINENTS. Yes, I certainly do. Have I seen evidence that this is in fact occurring currently at a rate that requires the kind of actions proposed by Gary? – Absolutely not. YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO BE AWARE OF THE INCREASING ICEFREE FIELDS IN ARCTIC ICE AND THE LARSSEN II COLLAPS AND OTHER RECENT COLLAPSES IN ANTARCTICA. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT KNOW THE LOSS OF 350 VERTICAL FEET OF ICE OF MOUNT EVEREST’S EAST RONGBUK GLACIER BETWEEN 1921 AND 2008. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT KNOW THE LOSS OF ICE OF THE RHONE GLACIER BETWEEN 1860 AND NOW AS DEMONSTRATED BY PHOTOS IN THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN OF 1986. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT KNOW THE ICE LOSS OF THE SOUTH CASCADE GLACIER IN CANADA. YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO KNOW THE INCREASE OF MELTING IN SPRING OF GREENLAND ICE. ARE THESE EXAMPLES SUFFICIENT OR SHOULD I QUOTE MORE? OR ARE YOU AWARE OF THESE AND CHOOSE TO IGNORE THEM OR UNDERESTIMATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE EVENTS?
    As to the precautionary principle, the last time I checked it has nothing to do with science and a lot to do with public policy prescriptions FATALLY WRONG , hence the accuracy of my assertion that invoking the precautionary principle is scientifically irrelevant ALSO WRONG.
    As for clouds and feedback, etc., please take a look at Roy Spencer’s most recent paper: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf. As a physicist you should have no difficulty with it. THANK YOU THAT YOU ARE NOT QUESTIONING MY CAPABILITY AT THS MOMENT. One conclusion he draws is that “The only times that there is clear evidence of feedback in global satellite data, that feedback is strongly negative.” This suggests that the sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 may be closer to 1 rather than the GCM models which assume something closer to 3. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT RADIATIVE FEEDBACK NOT ABOUT THE OTHER FEEDBACKS IN THE ATMOSPHERIC SYSTEM.
    You go on to say:
    “I also wonder if you really understood the issues related to Gary’s approach. The approach is about public awareness rising and stakeholder participation in contributing to a solution of the CAWG challenge. This has nothing to do with social engineering. Apparently you refuse his solution but advocate “the obvious alternative solutions”. Do you mean alternative solutions on the basis that CAGW is existent or that there is no challenge of CAGW? If the latter, Gary is not the right person to attack.”
    This statement makes me think that you have not read Gary’s Zero Carbon piece which is what I was highlighting. What exactly would you call a requirement that local authorities double current housing density requirements? The public policy proposals in that piece are social engineering under any definition – moreover raising “public awareness” can also be social engineering. I DISAGREE. ONE OF THE MANY DEFINITIONS IS: SOCIAL ENGINEERING IS A COLLECTION OF TECHNIQUES USED TO MANIPULATE PEOPLE INTO PERFORMING ACTIONS OR DIVULGING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. PUBLIC AWARENESS RAISING IS INFORMING THE PUBLIC NOT MANIPULATING THE PUBLIC, AT LEAST IN MY UNDERSTANDING.
    As to alternative solutions, I mean the aggressive expansion of nuclear energy. This is warranted as much by energy and economic security concerns as it is by CAGW. TRUE, THE PROBLEM WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY, HOWEVER, IS THE FINAL DEPOSITION OF OUTBURNED FUEL RODS WHICH IS NOT RESOLVED. THUS THE AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS AT LEAST PROBLEMATIC. AN AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGIES WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE. It is remarkable how the nuclear solution is almost never highlighted even though its use by France has shown it to be a great way to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
    Finally, you may see the IPCC as some neutral and objective body in this debate THAT’S VERY KIND THAT YOU MAKE THIS STATEMENT AS IN ANOTHER THREAD OF WUWT IPCC IS CONDEMNED IN LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL. Recent developments indicate that your faith may be somewhat misplaced. WHICH FAITH? I DID NOT VOICE ANY FAITH.
    BEST
    PETER

  222. Peter Panther,
    It looks like Gary Haq has hightailed it out of here, and you’re carrying his water. I would much rather have Gary respond himself, but since he’s skedaddled I will answer your post.
    First, Gary Haq is a “human ecologist” at the Stockholm Environment Institute. No wonder Mr Haq hides whenever he is asked a science-based question. He really doesn’t have a clue.
    In your first link, Gary Haq is quoted as saying, “The ‘Climategate’ fiasco saw the contents of emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit…” I challenge you or Haq to provide any evidence whatever showing the East Anglia emails were “stolen.” Haq’s credibility is at stake here. Otherwise, he needs to retract his unsupported claim.
    In the same article Haq states that “a scientific survey of Siberian tundra coastlines has reported methane levels are roughly 100 times above normal.” Citations, please! Of course, I really don’t expect any citations from a ‘human ecologist’. *snort*
    Haq also states that sea levels are drowning the island of Tuvalu. That nonsense was debunked by John Daly a decade ago, and the sea level at Tuvalu is almost exactly the same today as it was then. The Tuvalu sea level scare has been repeatedly debunked, for example here and here and here. There is zero truth to that decade old claim, but Gary Haq still parrots it as fact.
    Haq’s SEI links are more akin to comic books than to learned papers, with garish photographs intended to elicit an emotional response. And the SEI references are total crap. The most credible one seems to be — wait for it — the BBC.
    You accuse others of ignorance regarding “risk management” and “risk analysis,” but since you have no idea of the effect of an increase in CO2, a minor trace gas, how can you possibly “analyze” its effects? There is no empirical, testable evidence showing any effect from a rise in that beneficial and harmless trace gas, other than a significant increase in agricultural productivity. Taking action based on ignorance is the methodology of a fool, and has nothing to do with risk management. Wouldn’t you agree?
    Finally [I won’t debunk the numerous factual errors regarding nuclear power], your arm-waving over the Arctic has the same fatal flaw that infects every other climate alarmist: the increasing ice cover in the Antarctic is completely disregarded. Taken together with the Arctic, global ice cover is completely normal. Repeating hyper accounts of calving glaciers means nothing; those are ordinary events. And glaciers have been receding since before the Little Ice Age. The preposterous implication that glacier calving is due to CO2 makes anyone with a basic science background roll their eyes.
    The best advice I can give you is to search the WUWT archives and get up to speed on these subjects. It’s clear that up to now you’ve only been exposed to alarmist hand-waving and emotional sales pitches. It’s time to hear both sides of the issue. That way, you can make an informed decision.

  223. Peter I will only address one part of your response.
    “THE PROBLEM WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY, HOWEVER, IS THE FINAL DEPOSITION OF OUTBURNED FUEL RODS WHICH IS NOT RESOLVED. THUS THE AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS AT LEAST PROBLEMATIC. AN AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGIES WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE.”
    First I assume you mean spent fuel rods and disposition? It has been resolved in two ways. The best in use solution is to reprocess the fuel rods to produce new fuel. This has the added benefit of greatly reducing the amount of “waste” which can then be vitrified and either stored in secure aboveground sites or buried in stable salt deposits. The alternate solution is to just store or bury the whole spent fuel rod; this is a great waste of reusable fuel but is feasible.
    An aggressive expansion of renewable energies is a fool’s errand. Except for hydro and geothermal, renewables can’t supply reliable base load electricity. Modern society can not operate at the whims of wind and sun and there is no good storage method, well pumped water storage is feasible but requires large areas of land to be flooded (which the greens hate) and the construction of dams with associated hydro plants so just build the dam/hydro plant and leave the wind/solar out of the equation.
    Nuclear is the ONLY known reliable source of low carbon electricity and it creates less real pollution (CO2 isn’t pollution) than coal or natural gas. There is no guarantee that even trillions in research will improve solar/wind or provide better storage. So wouldn’t your precautionary principle say that nuclear is the only reasonable solution?

  224. Peter:
    I am intrigued by your assumption of Gary’s defence. Are you connected by chance to SEI? If so, in what capacity?
    Below my replies to your comments are in italics.
    PP: THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER.
    Does this mean that you had or had not read them previously?
    PP: POOR UNDERSTANDING IS NOT NO UNDERSTANDING. APPARENTLY YOU MEAN THAT ONLY IF WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT WE SHOULD ACT. THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS ATTITUDE.
    That is not what I meant as my subsequent comments make perfectly clear. This is a cheap debating trick.
    PP: TAKE GRADMA STRUDL’S PRINCIPLE: NOT TOO LITTLE, NOT TOO MUCH. APPLY THIS IF YOU CAN TO JUDICIOUS APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
    This hardly answers the question.
    PP: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE HAS WORKED WELL IN AIR POLLUTION, E.G. IN INTRODUCING UNLEADED PETROL, REDUCING THE SULPHUR CONTENT OF DIESEL ALTHOUGH THE HEALTH IMPACTS COULD NEVER BE PROVEN IN THE WAY A MATHEMATICAL PROOF IS PERFORMED.
    These are silly and irrelevant comparisons. The health impacts of these pollutants are readily demonstrable in experiments and epidemiological analysis.
    How can you tell when the invoking of the precautionary principle doesn’t simply stem primarily from political opposition? WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
    Read Aaron Wildavsky’s But Is It True?
    …since I do not see any major consequences in the next 50 years from BAU. NONSENSE, WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF THIS? HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH A PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE EXCEPT IF YOU READ THE TEA LEAVES, BASICALLY UNSCIENTIFIC.
    It is not unscientific at all. You are misusing and abusing the terms “scientific” and “unscientific”. Since you are claiming that things are going to change in some dramatic way, the onus of proof is on those who claim CAGW. What and where have actual persistent climate changes occurred since Hansen’s stage managed presentation in 1988? What have been the measured consequences? What indications do we have that these are malign as opposed to benign?
    … the precautionary principle as embodied in Gary’s policy prescriptions is in my opinion “injudicious”. YOUR OPINION. MINE IS THAT A CHANGE OF OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS BAU IS NECESSARY AND IT IS ALREADY STARTING IN EU-EUROPE.
    Changes in attitudes have little to do with science: They do have a lot do with public policy.
    Gary’s policy prescriptions are injudicious because they are based on totally unrealistic assertions as is illustrated by the notion that doubling housing densities will somehow reduce urban VKT by 37%.
    You also continue by saying:
    “I wonder if you really understand what risk of some adverse impact and precautionary principle mean.”
    I am not quite clear what you are saying. I AGREE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO KNOW WHAT RISK ANALYSIS AND RISK MANAGEMENT IS ABOUT.
    I do too! Let us not be silly.
    PP: YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO BE AWARE OF THE INCREASING ICEFREE FIELDS IN ARCTIC ICE AND THE LARSSEN II COLLAPS AND OTHER RECENT COLLAPSES IN ANTARCTICA. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT KNOW THE LOSS OF 350 VERTICAL FEET OF ICE OF MOUNT EVEREST’S EAST RONGBUK GLACIER BETWEEN 1921 AND 2008. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT KNOW THE LOSS OF ICE OF THE RHONE GLACIER BETWEEN 1860 AND NOW AS DEMONSTRATED BY PHOTOS IN THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN OF 1986. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT KNOW THE ICE LOSS OF THE SOUTH CASCADE GLACIER IN CANADA. YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO KNOW THE INCREASE OF MELTING IN SPRING OF GREENLAND ICE. ARE THESE EXAMPLES SUFFICIENT OR SHOULD I QUOTE MORE? OR ARE YOU AWARE OF THESE AND CHOOSE TO IGNORE THEM OR UNDERESTIMATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE EVENTS?
    First, I absolutely have been following changes in ice data and reading the relevant literature for the last five years. However, even if you are correct about long term glacier retreat, to put it bluntly, so what? What are the actual consequences that warrant the dramatic changes demanded by Gary and you in the UK? Let’s not be silly and talk about the Himalayan glaciers. Their water storage function can be readily matched with dams as and when that need becomes clear.
    As to the empirical facts, sea ice data seems to not support your doom and gloom prognosis – see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    In addition, the East Rongbuk glacier is kind of large (12.8KM in 1966) and changes appear largely due to changes in Monsoon based precipitation since 1930 (see: http://www.igsoc.org/annals/43/a43a106.pdf ). If the rate of retreat which started way before the current increase in CO2 continues, then it will be 12 Km long by about 2150 – assuming the recent increase in Monsoon driven precipitation does not increase accumulation. You may want to panic but I will wait for a more definitive assessment of climate change patterns and trends before I begin to advocate for policies that will create major economic disruptions.

    As to the precautionary principle, the last time I checked it has nothing to do with science and a lot to do with public policy prescriptions FATALLY WRONG , hence the accuracy of my assertion that invoking the precautionary principle is scientifically irrelevant ALSO WRONG.
    Just because you say so, does not make it so.
    As for clouds and feedback, etc., please take a look at Roy Spencer’s most recent paper: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf. As a physicist you should have no difficulty with it. THANK YOU THAT YOU ARE NOT QUESTIONING MY CAPABILITY AT THS MOMENT. One conclusion he draws is that “The only times that there is clear evidence of feedback in global satellite data, that feedback is strongly negative.” This suggests that the sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 may be closer to 1 rather than the GCM models which assume something closer to 3. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT RADIATIVE FEEDBACK NOT ABOUT THE OTHER FEEDBACKS IN THE ATMOSPHERIC SYSTEM.
    Now you are pulling my leg. Did you read the paper? What other feedbacks are you talking about that do not reduce to radiative feedback?
    What exactly would you call a requirement that local authorities double current housing density requirements? The public policy proposals in that piece are social engineering under any definition – moreover raising “public awareness” can also be social engineering. I DISAGREE. ONE OF THE MANY DEFINITIONS IS: SOCIAL ENGINEERING IS A COLLECTION OF TECHNIQUES USED TO MANIPULATE PEOPLE INTO PERFORMING ACTIONS OR DIVULGING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. PUBLIC AWARENESS RAISING IS INFORMING THE PUBLIC NOT MANIPULATING THE PUBLIC, AT LEAST IN MY UNDERSTANDING.
    Now you sound like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland. SEI is not informing the public in the report I cited above, they are advocating a specific group of public policies and explicit talk about changing people’s behavior. – When SEI says
    “A clear duty should be imposed on every local authority to double the urban density from approximately 40 people per hectare to 80 people per hectare. This doubling of density would reduce urban car travel measured in VKT by 37 per cent (pers. comm. Kenworthy, 15 June 2009). “(Page 45)
    Is this or is this not social engineering?

    THE PROBLEM WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY, HOWEVER, IS THE FINAL DEPOSITION OF OUTBURNED FUEL RODS WHICH IS NOT RESOLVED. THUS THE AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS AT LEAST PROBLEMATIC. AN AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGIES WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
    Disposing of nuclear waste is readily manageable both with existing and emerging technologies. Do you have references that suggests that UK energy needs can be met with renewable energy sources prior to 2050? 2100? I believe this is a 100% bogus assertion, based on wishful thinking rather than a realistic assessment of future energy requirements and current renewable technologies. The base power demands require fossil fuel or nuclear.

  225. Dear All,
    Please see my comments in CAPITALS and for Bernie’s statements framed as PP comment PP, the comment not in capitals.
    Smokey says:
    September 2, 2010 at 9:22 pm
    Peter Panther says:
    “Take an example: Ice core measurements indicate that average CO2 concentrations were around 280 ppm 25 million years before industrial revolution. Now they are at 380 ppm with tendency increasing. Similar evidence exists for NH4. Do you believe that this has no impact on climate or can you reject the hypothesis that there is an impact?”
    Peter, you really, really need to learn how the scientific method works. You would then understand that you’re making an argumentum ad ignorantium — a logical fallacy based on the misguided belief that because you don’t have the answer, then the culprit simply must be CO2. For all you know, the culprit might be postal rates.
    SMOKEY, SMOKEY YOU REALLY, REALLY HAVE TO LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCEPTIC AND SOMEBODY BEING IN DENIAL. READ THE ARTICLE OF RICHARD WILSON IN THE NEW STATESMAN OR STUDY HIS BOOK ‘DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN’.
    You don’t seem to understand that skeptics have nothing to prove. THIS IS AN ANACHRONISTIC VIEW. A GENUINE SCEPTIC FORMS HIS BELIEFS THROUGH A BALANCED EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE. THE SCEPTIC OF THE BOGUS VARIETY CHERRY-PICKS EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF A PRE-EXISTING BELIEF. THAT IS HOW SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK. That’s how the scientific method works: the promoters of the CAGW conjecture have the entire burden of showing that it explains reality better than the null hypothesis. They have failed.
    Planet Earth is continually falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture; as the harmless and beneficial trace gas CO2 rises, the planet is ignoring it BOGUS. Who should we believe? You? Or our lying eyes and planet Earth?
    If you believe you have empirical, testable evidence showing that a measurable temperature rise is attributable to the less than one CO2 human-emitted molecule out of every 34 emitted by the planet in total, then stand and deliver: post your evidence. If you can, you will be the first to be able to show real world evidence supporting CAGW beliefs, and you will be on the short list for the [now worthless] Nobel prize. THE IPCC GOT IT BUT, OF COURSE, THE NOBEL COMMITTEE IS PRESUMABLY STUPID IN YOUR VIEW.
    When searching for some kind, any kind of actual evidence, keep in mind that computer models are not evidence; and pal-reviewed papers are not evidence, and keep in mind that the IPCC has yet to produce a single example of testable evidence showing a measurable T increase per Pg of CO2 emitted. AS LONG AS YOU SAY THAT SCEPTICS (OR RATHER DENIALISTS) HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE YOU ARE NOT EVALUATING EVIDENCE IN A BALANCED WAY. JUST BY STATING ‘ THERE IS NO EVIDENCE’ IS NOT ENOUGH. YOU COULD SAY THE SAME OF GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY, QUANTUM FIELD THEORY ETC (WHICH OF COURSE ARE BETTER APPROACHES THAN CLIMATE CHANGE). AND: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.

    Haq is astonishingly naive and irresponsible to even suggest that society should — or could — reduce trace gases such as CO2 by 80%. That would put CO2 at only 78 ppmv, killing the biosphere well before that minuscule level is reached.
    YOU MISREAD THE ARGUMENT. IT IS NOT ABOUT REDUCING CURRENT CO2 CONTENT IN THE ATMOSPHERE BY 80 PER CENT BUT ABOUT REDUCING UKANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY 80 PERCENT
    Mr Haq is a certifiable lunatic if he believes, with zero evidence, that the West will destroy its standard of living without the slightest proof that such an insane reduction of a beneficial trace gas would be copied by China, Russia, Brazil, India and a hundred smaller countries — whose leaders can’t believe their great good fortune that technophobes like Haq have any influence at all. LUNATIC: THERE IS NO USE IN USING VERBAL INJURY OR GAFFES.
    238. Bernie says:
    September 3, 2010 at 6:37 am
    Smokey:
    Nicely said. Alas I fear it is not just Haq who is naive and irresponsible but the majority of those at SEI, judging by the collective foolishness displayed in their policy prescriptions. I am reminded of March and Olsen’s description of the Garbage Can Theory of Decision Making (http://www.amazon.com/Ambiguity-Choice-Organizations-James-March/dp/8200019608) wherein they describe one dysfunctional contributor to decision-making as “a solution in search of a problem.”
    Also, there are a couple of things Peter Panther has said, e.g., asking about whether Fred’s data meets the normal distribution required for regression, that makes me question just what he means when he says he is a “physicist”. Certainly his style of argument does not indicate anything but a passing familiarity with the details of climate science.
    BERNIE, YOU SHOULD REALLY REALLY LEARN WHICH ROLE MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS PLAYS IN SCIENCE.
    1. Smokey says:
    September 3, 2010 at 3:56 pm
    Peter Panther,
    It looks like Gary Haq has hightailed it out of here, and you’re carrying his water.
    I HAVE NO REASON TO DEFEND GARY HAQ EXCEPT IN THE CASE PSEUDOSCEPTICISM IS RAISED AND HIS STUDY IS MET BY VERBAL INJURY (LUNATIC, NAIVE) INSTEAD OF A BALANCED DISCUSSION OF HIS FINDINGS.
    You accuse others of ignorance regarding “risk management” and “risk analysis,” but since you have no idea of the effect of an increase in CO2, a minor trace gas, how can you possibly “analyze” its effects? There is no empirical, testable evidence showing any effect from a rise in that beneficial and harmless trace gas, other than a significant increase in agricultural productivity. Taking action based on ignorance is the methodology of a fool, and has nothing to do with risk management. Wouldn’t you agree?
    FOR EFFECTS OF CO2 INCREASE YOU MAY WISH TO READ THE ORIGINAL PAPERS QUOTED IN THE IPCC REPORT AND E.G.:
    US NAS UNDERSTANDING AND RESPONDING TO CLIMATE CHANGE http://americasclimatechoices.org/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
    MEEHL ET AL. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/307/5716/1769.pdf
    US EPA FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE F- FUTURE OCEAN ACIDIFICATIONhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureoa.html
    WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 2005 http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statement/documents/WMO998_E.pdf
    IS ANTARCTICA LOOSING OR GAINING ICE http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
    Finally [I won’t debunk the numerous factual errors regarding nuclear power], your arm-waving over the Arctic has the same fatal flaw that infects every other climate alarmist: the increasing ice cover in the Antarctic is completely disregarded. ONLY SEA ICE IS INCREASING LAND ICE IS DECREASING IN THE ANTARCTIC Taken together with the Arctic, global ice cover is completely normal. Repeating hyper accounts of calving glaciers means nothing; those are ordinary events. And glaciers have been receding since before the Little Ice Age. The preposterous implication that glacier calving is due to CO2 makes anyone with a basic science background roll their eyes. THEN ROLL YOUR EYES.
    The best advice I can give you is to search the WUWT archives and get up to speed on these subjects. It’s clear that up to now you’ve only been exposed to alarmist hand-waving and emotional sales pitches. It’s time to hear both sides of the issue. That way, you can make an informed decision.
    THANKS FOR YOUR ADVICE. I WILL HEED IT IF YOU CAN PERSUADE ME THE WUWT IS IN FACT THE BEST SCIENCE BLOG AND A GENUINE SCEPTIC FORUM AND NOT A FORUM OF THE BOGUS VARIETY THAT DECLARES ITSELF AS SCEPTICAL OF ANY EVIDENCE, HOWEVER COMPELLING, THAT UNDERMINES IT.
    Bernie says:
    September 4, 2010 at 11:54 am
    Peter:
    I am intrigued by your assumption of Gary’s defence. Are you connected by chance to SEI? If so, in what capacity? I LIVE IN GERMANY
    Below my replies to your comments are indicated as ‘PP comment PP’
    PP: THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER.
    Does this mean that you had or had not read them previously?
    PP Guess. PP
    PP: POOR UNDERSTANDING IS NOT NO UNDERSTANDING. APPARENTLY YOU MEAN THAT ONLY IF WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT WE SHOULD ACT. THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS ATTITUDE.
    That is not what I meant as my subsequent comments make perfectly clear. This is a cheap debating trick.
    PP Yes, of the kind you guys are using as well.PP
    PP: TAKE GRADMA STRUDL’S PRINCIPLE: NOT TOO LITTLE, NOT TOO MUCH. APPLY THIS IF YOU CAN TO JUDICIOUS APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
    This hardly answers the question.
    PP Think again.PP
    PP: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE HAS WORKED WELL IN AIR POLLUTION, E.G. IN INTRODUCING UNLEADED PETROL, REDUCING THE SULPHUR CONTENT OF DIESEL ALTHOUGH THE HEALTH IMPACTS COULD NEVER BE PROVEN IN THE WAY A MATHEMATICAL PROOF IS PERFORMED.
    These are silly and irrelevant comparisons. The health impacts of these pollutants are readily demonstrable in experiments and epidemiological analysis.
    PP By ‘experiments’ do you mean they experimented with children? Why do you believe epidemiological results which are fairly weak.
    How can you tell when the invoking of the precautionary principle doesn’t simply stem primarily from political opposition? WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
    Read Aaron Wildavsky’s But Is It True?
    …since I do not see any major consequences in the next 50 years from BAU. NONSENSE, WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF THIS? HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH A PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE EXCEPT IF YOU READ THE TEA LEAVES, BASICALLY UNSCIENTIFIC.
    It is not unscientific at all. You are misusing and abusing the terms “scientific” and “unscientific”. Since you are claiming that things are going to change in some dramatic way, the onus of proof is on those who claim CAGW. What and where have actual persistent climate changes occurred since Hansen’s stage managed presentation in 1988? What have been the measured consequences? What indications do we have that these are malign as opposed to benign?
    PP The evidence for AGW can be found in the papers that are quoted by the reports of the IPCC since around 1992 and the literature that is not quoted by the IPCC. PP
    … the precautionary principle as embodied in Gary’s policy prescriptions is in my opinion “injudicious”. YOUR OPINION. MINE IS THAT A CHANGE OF OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS BAU IS NECESSARY AND IT IS ALREADY STARTING IN EU-EUROPE.
    Changes in attitudes have little to do with science: They do have a lot do with public policy.
    PP Public policy regarding health and environmental issues is at least partially based on science – see the example of the policy of removing lead from petrol; another example is the prohibition of smoking in public closed spaces. When somebody is telling you that certain habitual action are bad for your health you may decide to discontinue them PP
    Gary’s policy prescriptions are injudicious because they are based on totally unrealistic assertions as is illustrated by the notion that doubling housing densities will somehow reduce urban VKT by 37%.
    You also continue by saying:
    “I wonder if you really understand what risk of some adverse impact and precautionary principle mean.”
    I am not quite clear what you are saying. I AGREE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO KNOW WHAT RISK ANALYSIS AND RISK MANAGEMENT IS ABOUT.
    I do too!
    PP Do you really? Don’ be a silly-billy. PP
    Let us not be silly.
    PP: YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO BE AWARE OF THE INCREASING ICEFREE FIELDS IN ARCTIC ICE AND THE LARSSEN II COLLAPS AND OTHER RECENT COLLAPSES IN ANTARCTICA. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT KNOW THE LOSS OF 350 VERTICAL FEET OF ICE OF MOUNT EVEREST’S EAST RONGBUK GLACIER BETWEEN 1921 AND 2008. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT KNOW THE LOSS OF ICE OF THE RHONE GLACIER BETWEEN 1860 AND NOW AS DEMONSTRATED BY PHOTOS IN THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN OF 1986. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT KNOW THE ICE LOSS OF THE SOUTH CASCADE GLACIER IN CANADA. YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO KNOW THE INCREASE OF MELTING IN SPRING OF GREENLAND ICE. ARE THESE EXAMPLES SUFFICIENT OR SHOULD I QUOTE MORE? OR ARE YOU AWARE OF THESE AND CHOOSE TO IGNORE THEM OR UNDERESTIMATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE EVENTS?
    First, I absolutely have been following changes in ice data and reading the relevant literature for the last five years. However, even if you are correct about long term glacier retreat, to put it bluntly, so what? What are the actual consequences that warrant the dramatic changes demanded by Gary and you in the UK?
    PP as you know by now I am not based in the UK. PP
    Let’s not be silly and talk about the Himalayan glaciers. Their water storage function can be readily matched with dams as and when that need becomes clear.
    PP I have not the impression that you understand the full scale of the problem. Now, with Himalayan glaciers melting, the amount of water transported by rivers such as the Ganges and the Indus will increase and lead to flooding the consequences of which we can see in Pakistan and Bangladesh. PP
    As to the empirical facts, sea ice data seems to not support your doom and gloom prognosis – see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    In addition, the East Rongbuk glacier is kind of large (12.8KM in 1966) and changes appear largely due to changes in Monsoon based precipitation since 1930 (see: http://www.igsoc.org/annals/43/a43a106.pdf ).
    PP A re the changes in Monsoon precipitation eventually a consequence of climate change? PP
    If the rate of retreat which started way before the current increase in CO2 continues, then it will be 12 Km long by about 2150 – assuming the recent increase in Monsoon driven precipitation does not increase accumulation. You may want to panic but I will wait for a more definitive assessment of climate change patterns and trends before I begin to advocate for policies that will create major economic disruptions.
    PP I am neither panicking nor making a doom and gloom prognosis. Don’t be silly to build up that strawman. Read more carefully what I am writing and think before you respond. PP
    As to the precautionary principle, the last time I checked it has nothing to do with science and a lot to do with public policy prescriptions FATALLY WRONG , hence the accuracy of my assertion that invoking the precautionary principle is scientifically irrelevant ALSO WRONG.
    Just because you say so, does not make it so.
    PP See above. PP
    As for clouds and feedback, etc., please take a look at Roy Spencer’s most recent paper: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf. As a physicist you should have no difficulty with it. THANK YOU THAT YOU ARE NOT QUESTIONING MY CAPABILITY AT THS MOMENT. One conclusion he draws is that “The only times that there is clear evidence of feedback in global satellite data, that feedback is strongly negative.” This suggests that the sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 may be closer to 1 rather than the GCM models which assume something closer to 3. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT RADIATIVE FEEDBACK NOT ABOUT THE OTHER FEEDBACKS IN THE ATMOSPHERIC SYSTEM.
    Now you are pulling my leg. Did you read the paper? What other feedbacks are you talking about that do not reduce to radiative feedback?
    What exactly would you call a requirement that local authorities double current housing density requirements? The public policy proposals in that piece are social engineering under any definition – moreover raising “public awareness” can also be social engineering. I DISAGREE. ONE OF THE MANY DEFINITIONS IS: SOCIAL ENGINEERING IS A COLLECTION OF TECHNIQUES USED TO MANIPULATE PEOPLE INTO PERFORMING ACTIONS OR DIVULGING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. PUBLIC AWARENESS RAISING IS INFORMING THE PUBLIC NOT MANIPULATING THE PUBLIC, AT LEAST IN MY UNDERSTANDING.
    Now you sound like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland. SEI is not informing the public in the report I cited above, they are advocating a specific group of public policies and explicit talk about changing people’s behavior. – When SEI says
    “A clear duty should be imposed on every local authority to double the urban density from approximately 40 people per hectare to 80 people per hectare. This doubling of density would reduce urban car travel measured in VKT by 37 per cent (pers. comm. Kenworthy, 15 June 2009). “(Page 45)
    Is this or is this not social engineering?
    PP With that argument any regulation such as speed limits, smoking in public places or punishment of criminal action is social engineering. Where do you draw the line? PP
    THE PROBLEM WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY, HOWEVER, IS THE FINAL DEPOSITION OF OUTBURNED FUEL RODS WHICH IS NOT RESOLVED. THUS THE AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS AT LEAST PROBLEMATIC. AN AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGIES WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
    Disposing of nuclear waste is readily manageable both with existing and emerging technologies.
    PP My Government and the German scientific community is not yet sure that nuclear waste radiating for the next hundred thousand years is really manageable. PP
    Do you have references that suggests that UK energy needs can be met with renewable energy sources prior to 2050? 2100? I believe this is a 100% bogus assertion, based on wishful thinking rather than a realistic assessment of future energy requirements and current renewable technologies. The base power demands require fossil fuel or nuclear.
    PP fossil fuel or nuclear? Any government will always look for an energy mix and not at a single option.
    Guys, I leave you now for you to further indulge yourselves in your self-congratulatory back-slapping chats. I am off to discuss proper science not pseudo-science. Best wishes

  226. Peter you method of response makes it very difficult to follow what is new, what is old and who wrote what.
    One thing that is clear is that you engage in the very same name calling of which you accuse Bernie.
    Just a few comments on your most recent post.
    “With that argument any regulation such as speed limits, smoking in public places or punishment of criminal action is social engineering. Where do you draw the line? ”
    Yes they are social engineering, good catch. And where to draw the line is what the majority of the discussion has been about.
    “YOU COULD SAY THE SAME OF GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY, QUANTUM FIELD THEORY ETC (WHICH OF COURSE ARE BETTER APPROACHES THAN CLIMATE CHANGE). AND: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.”
    And the same things were said about general relativity theory and quantum field theory. But both theories made predictions about what should happen if they were right. So scientists performed those experiments and found that with sensitive enough equipment the results matched (or better matched) the new theory than the old theories. So far much of what AGW theory has predicted does not match the actual collected data, like the warming of the troposphere. And what does science say to do with theories whose predictions are shown to be wrong?
    “My Government and the German scientific community is not yet sure that nuclear waste radiating for the next hundred thousand years is really manageable.”
    And that is more of a social engineering or political decision than a science decision. Other governments and scientists are sure that nuclear waste can be reprocessed and treated to recover the still useful components while the small amount of true ‘waste’ can be safely handled and stored for the next hundred thousand years. Is there some reason to believe the German government and scientists over the French, Russian, Chinese, etc? And I am sure I could find German scientists and politicians who agree with me just as I am sure you can find French, etc scientists/politicians who agree with you.

  227. Bernie,
    Conclusions? The same that I draw from the fact that you are not answering my questions and say that a denialist/sceptic does not have to prove anything. Did you ask serious and relevant questions?

  228. Peter:
    I have tried to shorten the piece by simply focusing on the issues and questions that still remain open or unanswered. Your original statements are in capitals, your responses are bracketed by PP. My earlier comments are in regular font and my current responses are in italics.
    I LIVE IN GERMANY
    Okay, but my question was do you have any connections to SEI? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
    PP: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE HAS WORKED WELL IN AIR POLLUTION, E.G. IN INTRODUCING UNLEADED PETROL, REDUCING THE SULPHUR CONTENT OF DIESEL ALTHOUGH THE HEALTH IMPACTS COULD NEVER BE PROVEN IN THE WAY A MATHEMATICAL PROOF IS PERFORMED.
    These are silly and irrelevant comparisons. The health impacts of these pollutants are readily demonstrable in experiments and epidemiological analysis.
    PP By ‘experiments’ do you mean they experimented with children? Why do you believe epidemiological results which are fairly weak.
    I don’t. You misread what I wrote. Unlike sulphur and lead whose effects have been shown experimentally and epidemiologically, significant negative impacts of increased levels of CO2 have not been shown experimentally or epidemiologically. They are matters of conjecture.
    What and where have actual persistent climate changes occurred since Hansen’s stage managed presentation in 1988? What have been the measured consequences? What indications do we have that these are malign as opposed to benign?
    PP The evidence for AGW can be found in the papers that are quoted by the reports of the IPCC since around 1992 and the literature that is not quoted by the IPCC. PP
    The question is not the existence of AGW, I have already indicated that we have a measurable effect on climate through emissions, aerosols, landscape changes, irrigation, deforestation, etc. The question is how much and with what consequences. The IPCC offers conjectures not evidence.
    … the precautionary principle as embodied in Gary’s policy prescriptions is in my opinion “injudicious”. YOUR OPINION. MINE IS THAT A CHANGE OF OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS BAU IS NECESSARY AND IT IS ALREADY STARTING IN EU-EUROPE.
    Changes in attitudes have little to do with science: They do have a lot do with public policy.
    PP Public policy regarding health and environmental issues is at least partially based on science – see the example of the policy of removing lead from petrol; another example is the prohibition of smoking in public closed spaces. When somebody is telling you that certain habitual action are bad for your health you may decide to discontinue them PP
    The precautionary principle is an issue of public policy response to perceived hazards that may or may not be based on science. It may be a characteristic of a particular public policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the science.
    PP I have not the impression that you understand the full scale of the problem. Now, with Himalayan glaciers melting, the amount of water transported by rivers such as the Ganges and the Indus will increase and lead to flooding the consequences of which we can see in Pakistan and Bangladesh. PP
    Do you have a specific reference to support your assertion? The issue stressed in the IPCC reports is that glacial melt water in the Himalayas is essential as a source of water during the dry season. The net addition of glacial melt water to run-off from monsoons is marginal given the levels of monsoon precipitation.
    PP A re the changes in Monsoon precipitation eventually a consequence of climate change? PP
    I assume that by “climate change” you are referring to AGW – else your statement is a tautology. Do you have a specific reference to support your assertion that AGW is having specific effects on Monsoons? GCM models have exceedingly poor regional resolution and, therefore, the impacts on monsoons are largely conjectural. Moreover, you seem to make assertions which after I refute them with specific empirical data or peer reviewed articles you completely ignore. Is polar ice increasing or decreasing? Is the retreat of East Rongbuk glacier fast or slow given its size?
    As for clouds and feedback, etc., please take a look at Roy Spencer’s most recent paper: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf.
    Since you chose not answer, I will repeat my question. Did you read the paper? What other feedbacks are you talking about that do not reduce to radiative feedback?
    When SEI says
    “A clear duty should be imposed on every local authority to double the urban density from approximately 40 people per hectare to 80 people per hectare. This doubling of density would reduce urban car travel measured in VKT by 37 per cent (pers. comm. Kenworthy, 15 June 2009). “(Page 45)
    Is this or is this not social engineering?
    PP With that argument any regulation such as speed limits, smoking in public places or punishment of criminal action is social engineering. Where do you draw the line? PP
    Your initial claim was that the SEI proposals are not “social engineering” – now you seem to acknowledge that they are? Where would I draw the line? Unwarranted social engineering occurs when there is no clear and compelling case why new or modified regulations are advocated. This is certainly the case with SEI’s housing density proposal.
    Do you have references that suggest that UK energy needs can be met with renewable energy sources prior to 2050? 2100? I believe this is a 100% bogus assertion, based on wishful thinking rather than a realistic assessment of future energy requirements and current renewable technologies. The base power demands require fossil fuel or nuclear.
    PP fossil fuel or nuclear? Any government will always look for an energy mix and not at a single option.PP
    I am surprised. Are you now saying that a smart energy policy will include fossil fuels and nuclear? Can wind and solar meet the base electric power needs of the UK? Germany? If so, a reference would be helpful.

  229. Bernie,
    My response to your first question is no.
    Unfortunately, I am too busy, to respond to all your questions and to search and type for you and explain to you all the references you request as a proof of my statements. Some of your questions cannot be answered in one or two sentences in a scientifically defendable way. I will be happy to do this work on your request if you wish to pay me.
    [snip] I call you a ‘sceptic’ in the same sense as Shakespeare’s Marc Anthony calls Brutus an honourable man. You as an AGW ‘sceptic’ are with a small minority. The majority of relevant people believing in the evidence of AGW are reputable scientists from reputable universities including Nobel Prize winners. I am with them.

  230. Peter interesting news about your comment that ““My Government and the German scientific community is not yet sure that nuclear waste radiating for the next hundred thousand years is really manageable.”
    Seems when they can get extra tax euros from them your government and scientists are willing to let the nuclear power plants run for another decade producing more unmanageable waste.

  231. Peter Panther says:
    “You as an AGW ‘sceptic’ are with a small minority. The majority of relevant people believing in the evidence of AGW are reputable scientists from reputable universities including Nobel Prize winners. I am with them.”
    What an insufferable appeal to authority. “Relevant” people believe in AGW? In case you haven’t noticed, so do charlatans. Al Gore is a Nobel prize winner — and a charlatan. I guess you’re with him, too.

  232. Peter:
    So let me get this straight, I provide data and peer reviewed articles that directly question the validity of your assertions yet you have the temerity to suggest that I am being unscientific and someone akin to those who deny that the Holocaust happened. For shame!! It seems to me that your arguments amount to little more than an appeal to an authority, i.e., the IPCC, that has been shown to operate with a seriously flawed process.
    Under any objective debating rules – you lost.

  233. Bernie,
    I have followed this dicussion with much interest. But now you go to far. I did not see Peter Panther mentioning Holocaust. So you are building up a strawman. You should argue ‘sine ira et studio’. I f you argue like you do it is you who lost.
    [Reply: Read the site Policy in the menu bar. ~dbs, mod.]

  234. Ignaz Wrobel,
    Bernie provided citations and a coherent argument. Peter answered with an insult: “I call you a ‘sceptic’ in the same sense as Shakespeare’s Marc Anthony calls Brutus an honourable man.”
    Peter also provided misinformation. The only honest scientists are skeptics, and they are not “a small minority.” Skeptical scientists are the vast majority. Only in the hijacked climate sciences is “skeptic” a bad word. Scientists like Michael Mann refuse to show their work. That means they are hiding something.
    I recommend reading A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. It will open your eyes to the scientific misconduct endemic among those scientists pushing the unsupportable CO2=CAGW conjecture.

  235. Ignaz:
    You are correct, Peter did not use the term Holocaust. However, the use of the term “denialist” unequivocally morally equates those skeptical of CAGW to Holocaust Deniers, an equivalency most find deeply offensive and why the moderator snipped Peter Panther’s comments. Even the Guardian has attempted to stop using the term because of this offensive and demeaning allusion. That someone from or living in Germany should make so free with the term is even in poorer taste. I also assume you understand Peter’s use of Mark Anthony’s speech from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, wherein Honourable actually comes to mean Dishonourable in the course of the speech?
    Please also note that from the beginning I acknowledged the existence of AGW. Peter simply failed to focus on the core issues of sizing the actual consequences of AGW as opposed to CAGW’s worst possible scenarios.

  236. Thanks mod for checking. That is a no no, right?
    Sounds like somebody has the same sense of integrity and probity as Lord Oxburgh. I think it is now legitimate to question much of what Peter/Ignaz said. Is Peter really a physicist? If he is not, then that explains the strange comment on the Spencer paper and the odd comment about statistics.

Comments are closed.