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.
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.
Recent evidence from the older age sector highlight the inadequacies of current methods of information provision and community engagement on climate change
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:
-
- Abandon old stereotypes
- Get to know your target audience
- Use trusted brands
- Use peer to peer communication
- Use positive messages
- Use the right “frames”
- Show real life examples
- Develop an inclusive dialogue
- Maximise participation
- Ensure the setting is right for change
- The full report can be found on the SEI web site: www.sei-international.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
#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.
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:
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.