If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Safety engineering has been based on the identification and assessment of risk and its mitigation for a quarter century.
No doubt, and rightly so, but let us not forget the ALARP principle employed in decision making processes related to safety critical systems. Considering the unsettled science and observations far from supporting the "climate crisis" beyond any doubt, the focus in "as low as reasonably practicable" in case of climate related restrictive measures should be on "reasonably".
Let us suppose you smoke cigarettes. Then there is a one in two chance you will die from a disease strongly causally related to your smoking. It is not certain.
I would suggest that empirical evidence at relating smoking to various health issues is much stronger than in case of identifying CO2 as the main driver of climate change. Nevertheless, regardless of known detrimental health effects of smoking, we do not hear any government battle cries for fully eradicating smoking - there is no money in it, quite the opposite (lost taxes). Even the green people seem to remain silent, overlooking the fact that particles and tar emitted within cigarette smoke are much worse than associated CO2. I have seen many climate cult followers smoking; a nasty habit, indeed ;)
Regarding the extent of anthropogenic effects on climate: professor Ross McKitrick has recently published an article "The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed" that refers to his paper in Climate Dynamics criticising the math behind “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology relied upon at attributing climate change to greenhouse gases. It was peer reviewed and not refuted, even recommended by at least one of the AT99 authors. He concludes:
"The AR6 Summary paragraph A.1 upgrades IPCC confidence in attribution to “Unequivocal” and the press release boasts of “major advances in the science of attribution.” In reality, for the past 20 years, the climatology profession has been oblivious to the errors in AT99, and untroubled by the complete absence of specification testing in the subsequent fingerprinting literature. These problems mean there is no basis for treating past attribution results based on the AT99 method as robust or valid."
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Safety engineering has been based on the identification and assessment of risk and its mitigation for a quarter century.
No doubt, and rightly so, but let us not forget the ALARP principle employed in decision making processes related to safety critical systems. Considering the unsettled science and observations far from supporting the "climate crisis" beyond any doubt, the focus in "as low as reasonably practicable" in case of climate related restrictive measures should be on "reasonably".
Let us suppose you smoke cigarettes. Then there is a one in two chance you will die from a disease strongly causally related to your smoking. It is not certain.
I would suggest that empirical evidence at relating smoking to various health issues is much stronger than in case of identifying CO2 as the main driver of climate change. Nevertheless, regardless of known detrimental health effects of smoking, we do not hear any government battle cries for fully eradicating smoking - there is no money in it, quite the opposite (lost taxes). Even the green people seem to remain silent, overlooking the fact that particles and tar emitted within cigarette smoke are much worse than associated CO2. I have seen many climate cult followers smoking; a nasty habit, indeed ;)
Regarding the extent of anthropogenic effects on climate: professor Ross McKitrick has recently published an article "The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed" that refers to his paper in Climate Dynamics criticising the math behind “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology relied upon at attributing climate change to greenhouse gases. It was peer reviewed and not refuted, even recommended by at least one of the AT99 authors. He concludes:
"The AR6 Summary paragraph A.1 upgrades IPCC confidence in attribution to “Unequivocal” and the press release boasts of “major advances in the science of attribution.” In reality, for the past 20 years, the climatology profession has been oblivious to the errors in AT99, and untroubled by the complete absence of specification testing in the subsequent fingerprinting literature. These problems mean there is no basis for treating past attribution results based on the AT99 method as robust or valid."
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
