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
“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
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.
“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
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.
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
socializedhealth careregimereform 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.
Bernie that was beautifully stated and summarises most if not all the alarmist views.
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.
Gary Haq pontificates:
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.
It seems that the Institute upholds the stereotype by targeting older people as being a case apart, requiring special propaganda.
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
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.
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
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.
Bernie says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:29 am
Bernie, excellent post!.
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.
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…
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. ☺
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.
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
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.
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
Can’t remember who but a tag line in the EUReferendum comment threads
If you don’t get grumpy as you grow older then you aren’t paying attention!
For Gary Haq.
Yes we’re concerned about stuff like real pollution like this…
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
Your religion caused that, chasing more jobs to China will only make it worse
DaveE
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.
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 Young 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.
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.