News

Outspoken scientist's colleagues ponder climate situation

In combined symposium and memorial, Stanford's Schneider recalled as great communicator

The sudden death in July of Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider silenced an influential voice in the global discussion on climate change, Schneider's fellow scientists agreed Sunday.

This story contains 666 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Carroll Harrington
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 13, 2010 at 3:24 pm

The memorial celebration definitely captured the essence of Steve Schneider, one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. You can learn more about him and "Science as a Contact Sport" in an excellent conversation between Palo Alto Weekly editor Jay Thorwaldson and Steve at <Web Link; Steve's brilliance, courage and tenacity are unequalled. A climate scientist who worked with him at Boulder said that they gave him the nickname "Steve Wonder"! We must honor his legacy by coming more active in addressing climate change issues. Palo Alto is definitely at the forefront, but we have "...miles to go before we sleep."


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 13, 2010 at 4:53 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2010 at 5:33 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2010 at 10:24 pm

> to defend President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative
> (dubbed Star Wars) against a widespread scientific boycott

And were the scientists of the 1980s correct about the impossibility of the US being able to develop weapons that could defend us from an incoming missile attack? Remember, there were many people here in the Silicon Valley who were making claims that it was "impossible to develop the software to actually target an incoming missile". These were some of the "best scientific minds" of the time (or so they and the media claimed). Yet, in spite of their concerted effort to claim that they were smarter than those working on a missile shield, and therefore the US should listen to them.

Well .. it's now a couple decades later. Not all of the shield is in place, and it may never be finished, but many of the ideas have come into play. Just this week, the Navy announced the success of a "rail gun", which was one of the ideas of SDI.

Point being, just because someone from Stanford says something, doesn't make it true. (Remember that yahoo who claimed, during the 1970s, that the world's farming system would break down by the mid- '90s and that hundreds of millions of people were going to die of starvation? He was (and still is) one of Stanford's finest. Not to mention all of the scientists at the time who were claiming that we were about to enter an "ice age" (or some cooling event of similar proportion).

> Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood
> [Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

It's a shame the editor of this blog spends so much time sanitizing the postings. Don't know what "brother Walter" posted, but would have like to have read it.

If the premise is that this fellow's work is now "sanctified", and it can not be analysed, attacked, and eventually displaced by better work, then we are not in a "good place" relative to the role of "science" in our governance process.

For instance, Al Gore is a shifty politician, who has become incredibly wealthy pushing "climate change". Gore's rise to fame included "inventing the Internet" and raking in bags of cash from Buddhist monks who had taken a vow of poverty, Here are a couple of Gore's more interesting activities:

Web Link

April 1996 Gore attends an event at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in Los Angeles that nets the Democratic National Committee close to $65,000 from donors. In September 1997, a trio of Buddhist nuns from the temple admit in Senate testimony that the temple illegally reimbursed guests for their donations. Gore later denies knowing the gathering at the temple was a fundraiser, describing the event as "community outreach."

March 1997 Gore is criticized for making fundraising calls from his White House office, and passing the bill on to taxpayers. Gore said he was advised before making the White House calls that there was nothing wrong with making the calls and that there was "no controlling legal authority" governing his actions.
---
Oh, and let's not forget how Al Gore is not a climate scientist, has never published a peer-reviewed paper on this topic, and has been shown to have been wrong on a number of his claims (like admitting within the last week that "ethanol" might not have been such a good idea as an alternative fuel. It's only fair to be able to question why someone like Schneider, who seems to be a "saint" in some people's eyes, would accept any award that included Al Gore, as a co-recipient?

Science is continually rethinking its core beliefs. Some of these activities bear fruit, some don't. Within the last couple weeks, a couple of astro-physicists made a prediction that there was evidence to suggest that the big bang was one of many big bangs, and that the universe had gone through many expansion, contraction, explosion phases before. This week, three papers were announced that challenged this revisionist theory--arguing for the status quo of "one big bang". What's interesting is that this branch of science does not seem to be claiming that "the origin of the universe is 'settled science'" as Al Gore and his cronies seem to be trying to do with climate science.

It's a shame that this fellow passed away, but he should not be put up on a pedestal and anyone who criticizes his work vilified.


Like this comment
Posted by Donald
a resident of South of Midtown
on Dec 14, 2010 at 7:29 am

Joe, I saw Walter's post before it was removed. It was simple name-calling, insulting Prof. Schneider with no reference to facts. Ad hominem arguments, attacking the person instead of the ideas, are ineffective and inappropriate for discussions of science and public policy.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 14, 2010 at 9:23 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Donald, my posting was correct in every detail. It was an appropriate response to a laudatory article. While I did not go into detail, neither did the original article, an anthem that gave no voice to the doubts surrounding Steven's advocacy.


Like this comment
Posted by Roger Potash
a resident of Menlo Park
on Dec 14, 2010 at 4:44 pm

I attended this tribute at Stanford held in Steve Schneider's memory. I learned a great deal about this renowned scientist, beyond what I had already known from hearing him lecture on global climate change at Stanford and elsewhere as well as reading his website and books, and that is that he had taught so very many effective and influential people who have come to be positive change makers today. The deeply felt and expressed emotions, courage, insights and experiences of the many speakers reinforced the deep respect and appreciation I have come to have for Professor Schneider since I first heard him speak two years ago. I only wish that he had lived longer, for we would have all benefitted from his remarkable contributions, particularly on the extremely challenging issue of how to respond to anthropogenic global climate change. My deeply felt condolences go to his family, friends and colleagues on his death.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2010 at 7:50 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Support Walter
a resident of Meadow Park
on Dec 16, 2010 at 5:18 am

I support Walter's comments. Just because someone is dead doesn't mean that one can't tell the truth about the results of his or her work. People can be well meaning and still have made horrific errors, and contributed to horrific results.

Unsubstantiated tributes do not demand substantiated repudiations.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is one of them.

Results count. There is no problem with anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere..it is all just a way to grab money and power, using "useful idiots" to get there.


Like this comment
Posted by FOXLEAKS
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 16, 2010 at 8:51 am

Internal memos prove that Fox News has been deliberately misleading the public about global warming and climate change: Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by An Engineer
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 16, 2010 at 5:02 pm

"And were the scientists of the 1980s correct about the impossibility of the US being able to develop weapons that could defend us from an incoming missile attack?"

Emphatically YES! The latest missile shootdown failure occurred just yesterday. From a statement from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency:

"Missile Defense Test Conducted

VANDENBERG AFB, Calif.--The Missile Defense Agency was unable to achieve a planned intercept of a ballistic missile target during a test over the Pacific Ocean today... Program officials will conduct an extensive investigation to determine the cause of the failure to intercept the target. The next flight test will be determined after identification of the cause of the failure."

The record of successful intercepts in these meticulously staged events has been about 50-50 for decades. That's hardly an operational weapons system to use against an impolite adversary who doesn't give a detailed countdown to launch. (Or maybe they would, just to taunt us.)

BTW, the centerpiece of SDI (the polite term for the Star Wars boondoggle) was a space-based nuclear-powered x-ray laser, which has never worked. Rail guns were a sideshow.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:09 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

A 50% intercept ratio would be just fine - just shoot twice at each incoming.
The program used to predict terminal temperatures, untouched by external criticism, should be used to predict the end result of each individual act of mitigation.
A failure to demonstrate significant change in end results would be prima faci evidence of the uselessness of the predictive program.


Like this comment
Posted by Support Walter
a resident of Meadow Park
on Dec 17, 2010 at 6:13 am

to "Engineer"..by your "emphatic yes" logic, we should shut down every school district with a 50% failure rate ..that would be pretty much every inner city public school, wouldn't it?

Your "logic" would have us, every time a piece of equipment blows, shut down an entire industry.

Every time we exhale, we would need to acknowledge our sin of poisoning the atmosphere with CO2.

I don't know what you are an "engineer" of, but I suspect it is not math based. Are you a social engineer?


Like this comment
Posted by jerry
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 12, 2012 at 3:25 pm

I attended this tribute at Stanford held in Steve Schneider's memory. I learned a great deal about this renowned scientist, beyond what I had already known from hearing him lecture on global climate change at Stanford and elsewhere as well as reading his website and books, and that is that he had taught so very many effective and influential people who have come to be positive change makers today. The deeply felt and expressed emotions, courage, insights and experiences of the many speakers reinforced the deep respect and appreciation I have come to have for Professor Schneider since I first heard him speak two years ago. I only wish that he had lived longer, for we would have all benefitted from his remarkable contributions, particularly on the extremely challenging issue of how to respond to anthropogenic global climate change. My deeply felt condolences go to his family, friends and colleagues on his death.

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Well said, W and SW
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 13, 2012 at 6:14 am

Walter and Support Walter: Yes!! Well said. Logic has no foothold in a lot of peoples' brains, but you hearten me with your responses.

If I could wish ONE thing for our nation's education system, it would be that we teach, from grade one, courses in logic development. We don't teach it, and as a result we suffer...and have ridiculous circular arguments with no end, since the twain of emotion and logic never meet.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Nobu confirmed to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 24,532 views

And one more makes three
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 7,835 views

Secretary of Plate
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 2,536 views

New York College Tours
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,149 views

Family Planning: Both Agree Before Getting Pregnant
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 763 views

 

Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 23 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away more than $4 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. When you make a donation, every dollar is automatically doubled, and 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.

DONATE HERE