Via Eurekalert: Avoiding dangerous climate change: An international perspective
The world will need to make substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions below current levels over the next few decades if the worst impacts of dangerous climate change are to be avoided. This was a key conclusion from UK and US climate scientists at an international workshop on the UK AVOID program in Washington, DC exploring the most policy-relevant aspects of understanding dangerous climate change.
Latest results from AVOID have shown that strong mitigation action to limit temperature rise to below 2 °C avoids many of the climate impacts, but not all of them. Examples show that 50% of the impact of water scarcity, and almost 40% of the impact of decreasing crop suitability can be avoided through early action on greenhouse gas emissions. Time is short and delaying action reduces the chance of limiting temperature rise to 2 °C and increases the chance of significant impacts.
The AVOID program is a unique inter-disciplinary research collaboration across the physical sciences, climate impacts and the technical and socio-economic implications of climate change. AVOID is targeted to provide policy-focused research and evidence needed to allow policymakers to develop mitigation and adaptation policy that is strongly grounded in scientific evidence. This workshop, the first international meeting of AVOID, was designed to discuss, engage and partner with US scientists.
Jason Lowe, Head of Mitigation Advice at the Met Office, United Kingdom, and Chief Scientist for the AVOID program, said “This workshop has provided the opportunity to compare approaches in the UK and US to identify the results that are the most robust. The aim now is to work together to find concrete ways of taking forward the best UK and US science for the benefit of policymakers.
“Such work is essential to inform government policies both in the UK and the US with robust and up-to-date evidence.”
Peter Backlund, Director of Research Relations at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, and Director of NCAR’s Integrated Science Program, said “Designing mitigation and adaptation strategies to avoid dangerous climate change is a major challenge for the US, the UK, and other nations. Scientific research is critical for informing this process, but the scientific community needs to do a better job in focusing research efforts on issues that are central to making decisions about how to respond to climate change.
“The UK AVOID program, with its integration of research from multiple institutions across the physical, social, and economic sciences, is one of the best examples of delivering advice that is directly relevant to policymakers. The program is producing useful information about the probabilities of achieving emissions reductions, the consequences of different levels of emissions, and options for reducing impacts. I am hopeful that we can create a similar program here in the US.”
Participating UK and US scientists agreed to explore further options for collaboration in this area of science of relevance to policymakers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No statisticians in the preparation of their papers, and now no engineers in the discussion of mitigation. These guys are creaming the grants and by anyone’s standards are sub-standard scientist/activists.
FAILED
First step, get them to sign the Nil C02 carbon pledge and, give 10 per cent of their earnings to the poor. Lead by example.!!
Well in the lack of a “Sorry we were completely and utterly wrong and all our talk about ‘Ice recovery’ was, well, drivel” then these guys are needed and their information is critically important.
Might I remind everyone that it is now the 3rd week in September
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I think we should AVOID making comments on stupidity like this.
Ooops. Second week in September. But the context is the same……
…I’m just back from two weeks in China, and if someone can tell me how we will convince that nation to reduce their carbon emissions, please do so. They are building about 1 major coal-burning electrical plant/week and have no intentions of slowing down.
According to the Shanghai Daily, Sept. 11, 2010 edition: “Shanghai and Bejing will each have populations exceeding 50 million by 2050, more than double the current level due to rapid urbanization and economic growth, researchers and officials said yesterday.”
Without China on board with a carbon mitigation plan, it’s all a joke, no matter what the community of climatologists might think. I’d say we are on the brink of all-out trade war, but I try to be much more positive than that. Thoughts?
Sound like a bunch of Choulartons to me.
Proverbs 26.11
“As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”
Especially when he’s making a very comfortable income, flying round to nice back-slapping international love-ins and can look forward to a very agreeable index linked pension on the strength of just carrying on promoting BigSnakeOil.
But worst case scenario is speculative guess work that not even IPCC themselves seem to think is a rational outcome.
So essentially the Boulder Dash people just want more money . . . again.
Which will require fistful of funding.
I`m suspicious,we`re more used to seeing figures after the decimal point. I mean really, forty percent? fifty percent? It`s a bit nebulous isn`t it?
Imagine them pitching this on `Dragons Den`
File under `open begging letter,transatlantic jollies`.
Amazing how these climate
scientistsactivistsloons can make stuff up. And what science was used to set this 2 degree C threshold anyway?Even accepting the ridiculous concept of catastrophic AGW, the concept of “mitigation” would mean things like building sea walls, reducing use of seashores for homes and buildings, etc. The misuse of the word “mitigation” is just another example of the kind of sloppy thinking involved in this charade.
Perhaps they meant “prevention”, however that was already taken for other junk science pushes.
It really is difficult to have ANY respect for these people, or their cheerleaders.
I like the name they chose, ‘a void‘ seems an apt description of the way the scientific method is treated by the church of CAGW climatologists, as the pursue their belief driven cargo cult science…
“Latest results from AVOID have shown that strong mitigation action to limit temperature rise to below 2 °C avoids many of the climate impacts, but not all of them. Examples show that 50% of the impact of water scarcity, and almost 40% of the impact of decreasing crop suitability can be avoided through early action on greenhouse gas emissions. Time is short and delaying action reduces the chance of limiting temperature rise to 2 °C and increases the chance of significant impacts.”
Utter alarmist drivel, designed to keep the research grants coming in!
“The world will need to make substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions below current levels over the next few decades if the worst impacts of dangerous climate change are to be avoided…….. The UK AVOID program………delivering advice that is directly relevant to policymakers……..create a similar program here in the US.”
The hijacking of science for religous activism with a single unchanging and unproven hypothesis as a mantra. Tiresome, omnipresent, wrong-headed & pernicious. A religion where original sin is industrialisation for profit and emission of carbon the continuing and amoral action which requires penance. To defeat a religion, a negative has to be proven and because of this, most religions survive.
Has anyone been called a ‘Climate Cynic’ yet. (in light of ‘Global Climate Disruption’)
The new way of saying ‘Climate Deniers’ without the holocaust denial smear…
I’m not bein flippant… These green media guys are ahead of the game, advicing the UN.
From a green media company – Futerra:
Sell the Sizzle – The New Climate Message
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf
“Cynics versus Activists
If you think the climate argument is won, then think again. Myriad climate battles continue to rage. On the science, or the policy response to the science, on the responsibilities of business, government and people, on the right moment to act, on who gets the blame, on who pays, on who benefits…
However, these battles have largely taken place beneath the public’s radar. Played out between CLIMATE CYNICS and Climate Activists in boardrooms or staterooms but only recently in living rooms.”
These guys Futerra were way ahead of me…
They provide their service to the UN environment Program, UK Government,
In fact, the UK government used them in creating the UK Climate Change Communications strategy.
Futerra – Rules of the Game.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
“Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.”
I mentioned DECC earlier – The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was created in October 2008, bringing together energy policy previously with BERR and Department for Environment.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/
And yet, Futerra still can’t quite help themselves though….
“Sell the Sizzle – The NEW Climate Message”
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf
“Climate Change Deniers
Unfortunately, these guys are back (if they ever went away). The edge of this group are the conspiracy theorists who are sure that climate science is an excuse for either (a) the environmentalists to curtail consumption or undermine our way of life, or (b) for the developed world to hold back the developing world.”
Fun Quotes From – Branding Biodiversity
“Need is essential
for policy makers
and business”
My favourite:
“Our audiences are
emotional rather
than rational.”
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf
About Futerra.
“Futerra is a communications agency. We do
the things great agencies do; have bright ideas,
captivate consumers, build energetic websites
one day and grab OPINION FORMER’S attention
the next. We’re very good at it. But the real
difference is that since our foundation in 2001,
we’ve only EVER worked on green issues,
corporate responsibility
and sustainability.
Not that I’m trying to point it out, they advice the UN ENVIRONMENT Program.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/WebEN21.pdf
“Futerra, in partnership with the UN Environment Programme, published Communicating Sustainability: How to produce effective public campaigns in September 2005.”
So a reasonable, direct from the source, bit of evidence that the ‘creative’ tools of PR are being used by government and the UN, (futerra since 2001) see their client list (Greenpeace, etc) has/is being used to ‘win’ the AGW consensus amongst the public..
As a bit of popular culture.
Anybody here remember when ‘carbon footprint’ actually started being widely used…?
Futerra focus grouped ‘Carbon Footprint’ in 2007…..
in ‘Words That Sell’
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Words-That-Sell.pdf
Nive little nicje earner, for Futerra, all thing green media since 2001.
Taking a look at the directors other ‘green’ interest is enlightening.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/about_us/directors
Especially Ed Gillspie… campainging for emmisson trading..(whilst advicing UN/UKGov.Greenpeace)
Ed was also recently appointed as a London Sustainable Development Commissioner and is a Director of the carbon emissions campaigning organisation Sandbag.
Policy can rarely be commented on as the source data is difficult to obtain and/or not presented. Freedom of Information *FOI) is onerous.
Internal audit and external audit reports may be seeking ‘consensus’.
The article below provides some tips to Australia’s new goverment.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/all-things-considered-before-opening-purse-strings/story-e6frg6zo-1225924276332
Code Tech says”It is really difficult to have ANY respect for these people or their cheerleaders.” Similarly James Delingpole is reporting on the UK government using virtual propaganda techniques to convince taxpayers that something has to be done and soon.
Don’t these people read the research espousing natural variability or observe what the real world is saying. We are being led by idiots. In Australia the government is staging a consensus council to figure the best way to introduce a carbon price. Sceptics are expressly forbidden. Our premier science org, CSIRO, is totally corrupt.
So Code Tech, I agree. There are very few scientists or orgs we can believe any more and pathetically, the lack of respect has spread beyond the climate change scammers. There are mothers questioning the safety of vaccinations, of food additives and so on.
“AVOID is targeted to provide policy-focused research and evidence needed to allow policymakers to develop mitigation and adaptation policy that is strongly grounded in scientific evidence.”
It is there in black and white – Policy based evidence making.
Some more detail about the AVOID programme is available here.
The Living With Environmental Change programme has its own website – http://www.lwec.org.uk/. It is a £200 million a year project that works with more than 20 other Government agencies.
So they have abandonded the “all will be OK below 2 °C” mantra and expanded the scope for using climate scares as an excuse to control and tax populations whatever the current temperature predictions are.
I notice the met office of mythical barbequeue summer fame were prominent partners in this enterprise, whoose weather forcasts I now tend to AVOID.
I get it now.
The two degrees C
looks like 2 o C
which looks like C O 2 backwards.
That’s where they got the idea from…
‘Jason Lowe, Head of Mitigation Advice at the Met Office, United Kingdom, and Chief Scientist for the AVOID program.’
The simple act of accepting, or creating, a post with this title assumes:
1. that climate change is an established fact
2. that climate change needs mitigation as it is inherently bad for the earth
3. that climate change is brought about by actions of humans that can be mitigated
From the above extract it is obvious that the group have carried out no new research, simply regurgitating other peoples research, opinions and alarmism to spin a miasma of endeavour that begs futher public funding.
The real way forward is to employ real economists to evaluate the damage that change will bring to the global economy. These same will then put forward fundable, non-destructive proposals to use human ingenuity and economic power to change human behaviour. People will only, in the real world, change their behaviour, en mass, if their standard of living is shown to improve through a certain course of action. Scaring people does not work, leads to clever and well reasoned opposition and is self defeating.
We were not scared into adopting the motorcar as opposed to the horse, we were not scared into moving from gas to electricity, we were not scared into using anti-biotics as opposed to herbal remedies. We chose to move because they offered genuine improvements to our standard of living, this is the way that mankind reacts. Give us cheap, renewable power and we’ll use it, give us increases in crop production and we’ll respond by breeding faster. Trying to frighten the world back to the stone age will not work
Nothing if not relentless. This is exactly how political activist continue even after an election loss. A number circulating around the web is the global climate disruption and related industries are racked up over 1/2 trillion dollars in 2009. Even panhandlers lash out if they are asked to move from their best producing corner. They need to continue the Golden Years.
Expect another push for carbon control/tax in Australia after they sort out all the payoffs to form a government. Then there’s the Lame Duck session of Congress with the House Democrats leaving town and folks like Snowe deciding whether it’s time to pull an Arlan Specter. If nothing else, it will be a real spectacle as the Dems lash out one last time with some Senate Republicans “moderates” deciding whether to change parties and some Senate Democrats reading the Tea Leaves for their re-election runs in 2012. One things for certain, if one bad bill passes then all of them will.
AVOID is merely a symptom.
Many of these scientists teach, give public speaches and know the system for funding requirements. Being tied to a Institution of some sort and bringing in funding is all the educational system cares about.
“Damn the science, funding is top priority”.
The scariest senerio brings in the biggest funding as they are still researching this issue.
“My inferior model states….”
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Righhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht!
I find it incredible that there’s a space for people like this around a subject that is, at best, idle speculation. I fear for the future with these people trying to pull the strings.