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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Peter:
What conclusions should I draw from the fact that you have not answered my questions?
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?
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.
[snip. Try again, without calling people here deniers. ~dbs, mod.]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.]
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.
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.
Both Peter Pant(h)er and Ignaz Wrobel were nom de plumes for the inter-war German satiric writer, Kurt Tucholsky – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Tucholsky .
It will be somewhat ironic if you are one and the same person, given your use of Mark Anthony’s speech.
[They are the same person. ~dbs, mod.]
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.