What a loss. Your story contains an error, by the way. Schneider's book "The Patient From Hell" details his battle with lymphoma, not leukemia. Specifically, he had mantle cell lymphoma, which is not considered curable. Schneider worked with his doctors on a unique treatment plan based on his own body's responses.

Schneider stated that those who are global warming skeptics are "immoral or deeply ideological". One must assume that Schneider saw himself as both moral and non-ideological. Alarmists often see themselves in superior terms. Remember his colleague, Paul Erhlich? Two peas in a pod.

Rest in piece Professor Schneider.

While my read on the subject is that man has had, to date, no affect whatsoever on global climate, I do think that ardent & vociferous scientists such as Professor Schneider have through their long work in the field raised the level of discussion to the point where the average Joe has been *compelled* to make up his or her mind. If it so happens that most people disagree with particularly vocal scientists who argue we must completely change our way of life to avoid catastrophic climate change, then scientists such as Professor Schneider having gotten so close to convincing governments worldwide to make unnecessary (IMHO) changes should be valued for their role in this process of realization.

Again, rest in peace Professor Schneider.

One thing I notice is true - those attacking scientists studying global warming and its danger, almost never bring facts to their posts. Kevin above is another one of these.

These are people, ignorant of the subject, think name calling and disrespectful mocking will win for them.

This is the damage fake "news" outlets like Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh have done for serious dialog.

William, the attack is on methodology, not personality. Et al & Sagan, Hansen, Schneider, Steven, Gore and the rest of the pack are like the snake oil peddlers. No matter what the diagnosis, the treatment is another bottle of Dr.Gore's nostrum, massive reduction in available energy with the accompanying reduction of free choice.
"...those attacking scientists studying global warming and its danger, almost never bring facts to their posts..." sounds like an attack without data to me.

More "Global Warming" alarms, the sky continueth to fall! Lotsa "heat" -No Light!
You get no "Facts" because your favorite sources don't think you are capable of handling "Inconvenient Truths"
Gotta love Love Al(Inconvenient Truths) Gore!

"the attack is on methodology, not personality. Et al & Sagan, Hansen, Schneider, Steven, Gore and the rest of the pack are like the snake oil peddlers."

Congrats, Walter, you're setting new records for concision. I used to have to compare two of your postings to show up your self-contradictions. Now you're canceling yourself in consecutive sentences.

Walter_E_Wallis -
You only prove William's points.
William says: "those attacking scientists studying global warming and its danger, almost never bring facts to their posts". You provide no facts.
William says: "These are people, ignorant of the subject, (who)think name calling and disrespectful mocking will win for them." You demonstrate how correct William is when you say Schneider, Gore "and the rest of the pack are . . . snake oil peddlers".
You say the attack is on methodology, yet you provide provide zero evidence to counter the methodology that has lead the vast majority of the world's scientists to conclude that Climate Change is a real threat.
Please provide evidence that would counter these facts:
"97% of the actively publishing climate scientists . . . agree that human activity . . . is a significant contributing factor to global climate change." Web Link

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion [and] have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

'An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.'

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion;" Web Link
The ball's in your court Walter_E_Wallis.

What a loss! A brilliant man has passed, leaving his mark.
May God bless you and keep you, Dr. Schneider!

Just for the record, I heard Dr. Schneider speak at a free outdoor lecture last summer behind Stanford Museum. He looked old and tired when he started but as he laid out his arguments, the urgency of the situation seemed to revive him and he closed loud and strong and to a standing ovation.
100 years from now, when historians look back at how this country dragged its feet on the most important challenge of the age, Stephen Schneider will be seen as one of the era's courageous and clear-eyed prophets. We need more like him.

Walter_E_Wallis -
Attack the methodology behind this:
"Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases." Web Link

The AGW scam was like the South Sea Bubble or the Black Tulip Bubble--- it made a lot of money for a few people like Al Gore.

Fortunately we put a stop to the bubble before it got completely out of hand--- no doubt some people feel nostalgia for the old days.

Paul Erhlich tried to create a similar bubble with his "Population Bomb" theory 30 yrs ago-- all his predictions proved completely false-- he still kept his tenure for some reason-- so other academics saw no down side and lots of upside to creating other The Sky is Falling" bubbles --- as non of face any academic or financial consequences these scams will continue.

Sharon -
William has your number: "those attacking scientists studying global warming and its danger, almost never bring facts to their posts."
What proof have you that Al Gore got rich off GW? Is this just another one of Rush's talking points? If anything, it looks to me like it may have cost him his marriage.
You and those who try to deny Climate Change and any effort to control GHG, are you willing to sign a statement of your beliefs that you would want your children's children to read? You, more than likely, will never experience the consequences of Climate Change. Your grand children will not be so lucky.
How can you be so sure of the correctness of your position that you're willing to gamble the future of our descendants like this? Are you a climate expert?

regarding qualifications

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri the head of the UN global warming IPCC is a railway engineer and soft porn writer.

Al Gore failed both Law School and Divinity School, when he left the VP role his net worth was $2 million he is now well on his way to becoming the first AGW Billionaire-- he has clear conflicts of interests
Not only did Gore himself admit last year that he has personal investments in green companies that will benefit from cap and trade legislation, but he apparently has a $35 million investment in "hedge funds and other private partnerships" that invest "in makers of environmentally friendly products."

Paul Erhlich has no background in public health, population studies nor economics --- his academic qualifications are in Entomology--- did not stop him claiming expertise in a host of unrelated fields.

Follow the money---

Paul Erhlich talked about exponential population growth and famine related to it. There are 7 billion people on the planet now, and 1 billion in a constant state of hunger.

Anyway, the academics know that if you want to make a lot of money, you don't create a conspiracy, you write a children's novel, start a talk show, or create a really bad software operation system and give it away to the large computer companies.

Sharon -
All that is interesting but it has absolutely nothing to do with the science of Climate Change.
As William pointed out "There are people, ignorant of the subject, who think name calling and disrespectful mocking will win for them." Nothing you said bears on the facts that the planet is warming due to man's overproduction of GHG.
As for Al Gore's conflict of interest - I don't see it. He's a business man (and apparently quite a successful one at that Web Link - no longer a politician. He's gotten rich by having the foresight to become a member of both Google's Board ($30 million in Stock) and Apple's ($6 million)and by, more recently, "starting a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields."
Not that there isn't money to be made in dealing with the crisis. I hope those who show us how to replace fossil fuels with efficient and cost-effective alternatives become fabulously rich. They deserve to for saving the planet.
But you've not answered my question Sharon: Are you willing to write a letter to your great-grandchildren explaining why you opposed doing anything about Climate Change when there was still a chance to control it? I'd like to see that letter.

Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) deconstructs the global warming hyesteria in the following lecture: Web Link

One of the amusing slides he showed was the following:

“THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP, ICEBERGS ARE GROWING SCARCER AND IN SOME PLACES THE SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT. REPORTS ALL POINT TO A RADICAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC ZONE. EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES. GREAT MASSES OF ICE HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MORAINES OF EARTH AND STONES, WHILE AT MANY POINTS WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED.”




—US WEATHER BUREAU, 1922

Prof. Lindzen goes into the essential issues of positive vs. negative climate feedback and the fallcious models that are so heavily relied upon by the climate alarmists. It is worth spending the time to watch the clip.

Have you ever noticed that apocalyptic shamans are always adjusting the apocalypse forward in time, when it doesn't happen when they say it should have happened? Paul Ehrlich and his famines due to overpopulation is a good example, especially since he and Schneider come from the same alarmist mindset, and at the same den at Stanford.

I suspose we will be forced to listen to this global warming hysteria until the funding well supporting it runs dry, but it doesn't mean that we have to take it seriously. The most serious thing about it is the waste of taxpayer money that funds this fraudulent stuff (e.g. Climategate).

Actually, climate change is happening faster and worse than was feared at first:

Web Link

Paul Erhlich was right! In the last 100 years the Earth's population went from 1 to 6 billion, and the Earth itself, its air, and water have not increased. Last year, more food was eaten by people than was produced. Clean water is scarce. The Earth's atmosphere is a thin skin now with gapping holes. And the climate is getting warmer. None of this bodes well for our collective future.

An just who is this that is supporting the global cooling scientific consensus in the 1976 to 1982.
Web Link

Then a few ago months in Copenhagen who is this calling in armed guards to quell a credentialed questioner who dare ask a question.
Web Link

Hide the decline, now that's science.

"“THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP ... lots of capital letters ... WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED ... - 1922"

That's nice, Kevin. You and Prof Lindzen (MIT) are helping prove the famous Hockey Stick. I have to wonder how much of "the essential issues of positive vs. negative climate feedback" you really understood.

Palo Alto parent,

You demonstrate the suscepitbility to hysteria that is at the center of the frauds who are pushing this entire theory of global warming. Please do yourself a favor and listen to the lecture by Prof. Lindzen. Arctic sea ice has been fluctuating, more some years than others...as my quote from 1922 demonstrates. There are sea ice demonstations that you can find on the Internet that show that much ado is made of nothing. Anybody can make a case with a snapshot picture, but that is not science.

Lou,

Paul Ehrlich is completely wrong. The capacity to feed the billions of people are better now than they were 100 years ago. That is why famines werecommon a century ago, and they are rare today (and mostly due to political instability). In fact, the population bomb is more of a fizzle than a bomb. The birth rate is declining across the globe, and the total population of the earth will begin to decline in about 50 years. Nothing to worry about, unless you like to worry.

Paul,

The hockey stick is a completely discredited statistical fraud by Michael Mann at Penn State. You need to get up to speed. Even serious global warming believers no longer talk about the hockey stick.

Steve was a good friend and a great colleague. He was a brilliant scientist and an excellent communicator who tried very hard to clearly and objectively communicate climate science to the public and the decision makers. We need more scientists like him. I am proud to have known him and I feel privileged to have co-authored a paper with him. He has been an enormous asset to humanity. May he rest his peace.

Cagan Sekercioglu

Center for Conservation Biology

Stanford University

Department of Biology

"You need to get up to speed. Even serious global warming believers no longer talk about the hockey stick."

I take it you dispute Kevin's evidence supporting the hockey stick.

Kevin -
I think it's rather odd that you place so much faith in one scientist. What about the 50,000 other scientists who disagree with your Prof. Lindzen? Perhaps you should look into what his colleagues at MIT think of Richard Lindzen. Check out Web Link where one of them says:
"There is one MIT professor who has remained blind to the remarkable strengthening of our understanding of climate science in the past 2 years — Richard Lindzen. A general debunking of Lindzen’s popular disinformation tracts can be found on Web Link

As for your claim that "The hockey stick is a completely discredited statistical fraud": On the contrary, "After global warming deniers questioned the validity of the 'hockey stick' curve, the National Research Council (NRC) was asked to review past climate reconstructions by the House Science Committee. The NRC concluded that although uncertainties exist due to the nature of proxy records, it is plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding millennium."
If you're really serious in learning about what the vast preponderance of the scientific community conclude about Climate Change, with references to their studies no less, I recommend you check out year-by-year bibliography of published studies from climate experts from around the world: Web Link

Unfortunately the AGW movement has merged with the pantheistic religious movement.
We support the separation of state and religion and the distinction between science and faith.
The old guys from the 60s are still trying to sell the pantheistic dream - and make money from it.
Hopefully true science will prevail, at least @ Stanford-- China has no such delusions.
There were financial motives to get on the AGW band wagon-- but that has gone

You're trying to convince yourself that Global Warming is just a conspiracy among the world's scientists to keep their research grants coming. You're deluding yourself, perhaps because you're very scared that they are right. It's an emotional reaction to a very scary sitatuation.
But the science is out there for everyone to read. It's dispassionate; it's supported by evidence from many, many parts of the world; it's supported by evidence that comes from the seas, from the ice, from the atmosphere, from the temperatures, and much, much more.
You can continue to bury your head in the sand if you want to but that won't change the facts, which at some point in the not too distant future will be so irrefutable that no one in their right mind will argue. By then, it may well be too late to reverse the trend.
It may already be too late.

Steve,

Mann's hockey stick was statistically flawed. If you actually follow this stuff, you would know that McIntyre and McKitrick (in Canada) revealed the flawed approach. Mann failed to properly normalize his data and in fact chose data that empahsized his predetermined conclusion of the hockey stick and suppressed the data that did not. The plot also completely suppressed the medieval warm period. It is bogus science.

The NRC report "concluded that the strongest statement that could be made was that the present years were the warmest in 400 years, not 1000 as Mann had said"...the council also concluded that Mann's analysis showing the absence of the medieval warm period period was not correct" (from: Richard Muller, who was one of the referees of the report).

Lindzen has spent his entire academic career studying atmopheric dynamics and forcing factors. He is a true expert, unlike the vast majority of scientists who are making a living getting grant monies. There are a number of real experts who are skeptics, but they do not get grant money (not a surprise). Schneider was not an expert on the atmosphere or climate...he was a propagandist.

Kevin -
You said that the "hockey stick is a completely discredited statistical fraud" and "bogus science". Where do you get your information, FOX News?
If you actually followed this stuff, you would know that that was not the conclusion of the NRC report, which noted the flaws in technical aspects of the Mann et al.'s methodology and data sets but concluded that the basic hockey stick shape was valid.
Moreover, you would also be aware that "more than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs . . . almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century." Web Link
The hockey stick graph is still very real Kevin; it shows up in graphs from a variety of studies, all demonstrating that the planet has heated up dramatically in just the past 2 or 3 decades. Web Link
And of course this is the same result NASA sees in direct temperature measurements going back to 1880: the decade from 2000 to 2009 is the hottest ever. Web Link

With all the above comments we seem to have forgotten that a person has died. Whether or not you agreed with him or not. It's sad that he died on a plane.

The Tea Party is behind it.

Climate science suffers the same fate that eugenics suffered two generations ago.

Both became politicized, and as such people view the "science" through the lens of their political beliefs and biases.

Because of this, the only way we will ever really know if either are true, is after the predictions of these theories either happen or they don't.

According to science the surface temperatures on Venus,Mars etc have increased to the same extent as they have on Earth --- as a result of variations in Sun Spot activity-- CO2 is a plant food--- it is not a pollutant like mercury or lead, these are the pollutants we should worry about and they come from coal plants in China.

According to science the surface temperatures on Venus,Mars etc have increased to the same extent as they have on Earth --- as a result of variations in Sun Spot activity-- CO2 is a plant food--- it is not a pollutant like mercury or lead, these are the pollutants we should worry about and they come from coal plants in China.

Steve and others, thank you for your tireless rebuttals to these misinformed posters. We got a little Schneider in us :)

A revealing article on Richard Lindzen
Web Link

-MIT has recently updated their climate projections to 5.1 degrees Celsius hotter by 2100. Compared to the .3 degrees projected by Linzden, it is clear that MIT does not endorse his research.

-Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2,500/day for consulting services.

I became familiar with Stephen Schneider because he did an interview with Michael Killen for the documentary I'm working on called "Painting to Change the World"
Web Link

I had the chance to meet him in person about two months ago after he gave a lecture at the First Presbyterian Church about climate change. He was always on the move. This important man took the time to talk to me - we discussed personal health...

I saw him again on June 12th, 2010 when he took the time to come out that Saturday night to support our project, even though he had a flight to Taiwan the next morning.
Web Link

He was right, we need serious government pump priming for the research, development and deployment of clean and safe energy sources that never run out, for the exact same reasons we buy insurance for our health and property.

RIP Stephen H. Schneider

RIP sir.

Nice link at end of this to an uplifting lecture by Mark Ridley on the TED series.

Starts out talking about how when we were kids the sky was falling and we were all going to die because of the population bomb, coming ice age, nuclear bombs, mass starvation, horrific pollution etc etc. Mentions the every-generation cycle of this apocalyptic thinking.

Then goes on to show how much better everything has been becoming and still is, and why. Called "When Ideas have Sex", re: how we are all so interconnected in our ideas that we continue to exponentially propogate great ideas to overcome and improve our ourselves, our world and our future. Relevant to this discussion here, how much cleaner are all of our lands in the USA, from air to water, now than 30 years ago? Agree or disagree with the hijacking of the environmentalist movement into politics, the result was an incredible cleaning up of our nation.

I think of this video lecture because of the post above who had a good point...folks like Schnieder, RIP, with whom we may or may not agree, are still part of whipping us into attention to improving our ways in the world... Whether one is a model we emulate and follow or fight and disprove s/he is still someone who affects the ideas of others.

I, personally, from my readings, am one who is part of the "push back", but I would have never learned much nor thought much about this subject if not for the big push from folks like Mr. Schneider.

I DO wish we could stop attaching moral superiority to political and scientific "beliefs", though. I am assuming it is that drive toward religion deep in us that, if not properly channeled, gets misdirected, but nonetheless it is still very annoying...and has become, for me, a warning signal if a science or political concept is touted as "moral". It may or may not be, but when moral superiority gets used as a tool of persuasion, instead of results of x,y, z, I have learned to push back first, then examine.

Web Link

A snake oil salesman is someone who sells the same cure for unrelated illnesses. That is a methodology.
An overwhelming percentage of those scientists employed by or beholden to governments support theories that increase government power. Surprise?

"According to science the surface temperatures on Venus,Mars etc have increased to the same extent as they have on Earth --- as a result of variations in Sun Spot activity"

Be that as it may, the influence of sunspots on earth temperatures is demonstrably very weak. Scientists searched for an effect for many years before finally finding one.

"CO2 is a plant food--- it is not a pollutant like mercury or lead, these are the pollutants we should worry about and they come from coal plants in China"

And from coal plants in the USA, which generates half its electric power using coal.

Say, speaking of CO2 as plant food, did you catch the piece on NPR last night about how poison ivy is growing much more vigorously, and its itchy oil becoming more potent, because of increasing CO2 (they mentioned CO2 was plant food) and warming temps? The world will end, not with a bang, but with intense scratching.

Ah, yes. Only an idiot would see a correlation between solar output and planet surface temperature, right, Paul? I guess Stanfoo ran out of Ocam.

Boy, that Walter is a real nasty piece of work. No respect for anyone that dares to disagree with him, even if that person just died. Walter is a real enemy of what this country stands for.

"Only an idiot would see a correlation between solar output and planet surface temperature, right, Paul?"

Well, many have.

You might look for yourself - the necessary geophysical data are freely available on the web and the calculation is easy with any PC. Powerful analysis tools like R, Python, and Octave are also free. Have fun.

The following comment was moved from a duplicate thread:

Posted by Cagan Sekercioglu, a resident of Stanford, on July 19, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.:

Steve was a good friend and a great colleague. He was a brilliant scientist and an excellent communicator who tried very hard to clearly and objectively communicate climate science to the public and the decision makers. We need more scientists like him. I am proud to have known him and I feel privileged to have co-authored a paper with him. He has been an enormous asset to humanity. May he rest his peace.

Cagan Sekercioglu

Center for Conservation Biology

Stanford University

Department of Biology

Interesting websites about global warming -- The Discovery of Global Warming – A History -- Web Link
-- and those who have worked to discredit the the science behind it -- the book, Merchants of Doubt, about "how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming," Web Link
Web Link


Whatever side you are on, these are thoughtful documents that provide much to think about. The first has many links and background information. The other two describe the book.

Wallis wants nuclear power, 20 cents a KWh on peak, 5 cents a KWh off peak, dollar a gallon gasoline, $100/sq ft residential construction, wise use of all resources with cost/benefit evaluation of all regs.
I don't want Hansen's magic box or Brit researchers who just can't remember where they put the raw data basis of their computations. I don't want researchers mounting vendettas against those who question their conclusions. I don't want Urban Heat Island Correction Factors applied to global data, I don't want shredders in labs, and I want the electronic equivalent of ink on numbered log pages. And, Paul, you never answered my question - is your last name Ehrlich?

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[27] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[28] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more." Web Link

Kevin -
You forgot to mention that the first quote from Dr. Gray is 10 years old, before the hottest decade in the past 1000 years. Would he still characterize these observations as "this small warming"?

Here's an interesting analogy from Timothy Egan's article in today's NYT that discusses one of the lead "Climate Deniers" in the country today, Senator James Imhofe of Oklahoma:

"But I rely on the experts, those people who’ve devoted their lives to understanding changes in the earth’s temperature, to guide political leaders, and ultimately get me to join the rest of the planet in trying to keep us from slow-cooking ourselves to death."

"If my doctor brought me biopsy results showing cancer, I would do something about it. Inhofe would likely call the doctor an idiot, say the biopsy was a hoax and have me skip merrily to an early death."

"Paul, you never answered my question - is your last name Ehrlich?"

Fair enough, you never answered mine - is your last name Weight?

My, these climate discussions do get warm.

Steve -

The medical analogy that you quote is almost as bad as the 'fire insurance' analogy that Schenider always liked to use. It goes something like this: Even if there is a low probablility that something bad will happen, it only makes sense to be cautious and pay the price up front, in order to prevent it (or to ameliorate its effects). Schnedier conveniently forgot to mention what the insurance premiums would be, namely a severe dimunition of human prosperity, leading to increased poverty, wars, famines, etc.

The medical analagoy is somewhat personal to me: My father had a moderately elevated PSA blood test. His doctor referred him to a urologist. The urologist told him that PSA levels are somewhat alarmist, and that the only real way to know about prostate cancer is to take a biopsy, although he did not recommend it. My father went back to his regular doctor, who had attended a recent conference where the PSA alarm was front and center, and his doctor insisted that he go to a different urologist to get another opinion. Needless to say, this new urologist was of the alarmist camp, and my father was convinced to get the biopsy procedure. Long story made short, the procedure, which showed no prostate cancer, had a very bad side effect: My father was made impotent. OK, so he was 70 years old, and maybe one could say that it didn't really matter. But it did to my father and my mother. My father quickly declined, both psychologically and physcially after this point. He died three years later, a broken man. The take home lesson for me is: Beware of alarmists, they might be wrong, but you have to pay the price.

Now to the "hottest decade" issue. If you buy the data, which comes from NASA, and precedes the satellite era (see Web Link ), a very suspect thing for NASA to do, the 1922 meltdown of Greenland was in the middle of a relatively cold temperature period. Look at the graph! Prof. Gray's explanation of warmer ocean currents is a more plausible theory than 'global warming'. NASA should stick with what they really do best - satellite infrared meassurements of the earth's surface temperature. Even that may not be very useful, but at least it is a real measurement that can be debated.

Here is an interesting theoretical construct: Have all the national and international funding agencies ONLY give research funds to global warming skeptics, and none to global warming promoters. Within two years you will see an amazing new set of data, all peer reviewed, supported by the vast majority of scientists, that shows that anthropogenic warming of the earth's surface cannot be shown, because climate is too complicated to model. This new paradigm, too, would be as bogus as the current one, because it is driven my funding politics.

Kevin -
I think the medical analogy is rather apt: you're effectively saying the vast majority of the world's climate scientists are idiots, that their conclusions were bought & paid for by grantors with a political agenda, and that therefore we should do nothing because we can't trust anybody's results.
How absolutely cynical can you be?

Paul, my last name is as I post it. The Precautionary Principle, last ditch defense of the alarmist apologists, should be used cautiously. A cost/benefit analysis would suggest that trashing the world economy to avoid a 1 degree C rise in a century did not pencil out. Each change recommended by the warmies should be cranked through Hansen's Magic Box to demonstrate its specific end effect by Hansen's own program. That is how real science, real validation of a hypothesis works.

The reason the AGW campaigned failed is because Schneider, Gore and others made it such a partisan issue,only 20% of Americans are on the left, 40% are Conservative and the rest are Moderates.
The faked data and analysis were the death knell--- now AGW is at the bottom of most peoples concerns-- it has lost its brand

Where is Gore these days? he is as quite as a mouse

Sharon -
You failed to attribute your comment to David Brooks who quoted exactly the same statistics on the News Hour last night. And I didn't agree with him either.
If you want to point the folks who politicized this debate you really can't exclude Rush, Glenn, and politicians like Imhofe and McConnell. Nor can you neglect the big energy companies who have spent piles of money distorting the research and sowing the seeds of confusion that have grown and choked off action in the Senate, at least for this year.
Meanwhile the rest of the developed world is moving ahead with their plans to reduce greenhouse gasses in their own countries and subsidizing research on alternate energy sources. They look at the US and shake their heads at how such a powerful country can, as with Health Care, fail to do what is so obviously in the best interest of its citizens and future generations.
And in this country us frogs just croak at each other as the temperature of the pot of water we're sitting in continues to rise.
I'm in Washington DC this month where today's temperature is expected to shoot past the old record of 96 and hit at least 102. The local weatherman mentions that so far, 2010 is warmer than any prior year on record (for DC). Reuters confirms that this is not a local phenomenon:
"The world is enduring the hottest year on record, according to a US national weather analysis, causing droughts worldwide, a Reuters report from Washington said Monday. For the first six months of the year, 2010 has been warmer than the first half of 1998, the previous record holder, by -17.76 degrees Celsius, said Jay Lawrimore, chief of climate analysis at the US federal National Climatic Data Center."
Just read your papers Sharon and you'll see the evidence: A report in today's New York Times talks about dengue fever, once an illness of the tropics, becoming an increasing problem in Florida. Sea ice in the arctic is melting back more and more each summer to the point that a Northwest Passage will soon be a reality, something that hasn't been observed since before the last Ice Age. And as the Arctic ice melts, so does the neighboring tundra, potentially providing a huge new source of CO2 to the admosphere as the frozen organic materials are oxidized (Web Link
For heaven's sake Sharon, what more evidence do you need? It's time to take those blinders off, not to keep pulling them even tighter around your eyes.

A Northwest Passage was dream of mariners for centuries.
It will save huge amounts of energy in shipping between Asia and Europe.
You would think that Al Gore would have at least paid some tribute to Schneider's memory--- but he remains quite as a mouse these days-- maybe he is just counting his money.

Sharon -
So you are willing to accept that Climate Change may be happening? If so, you need to look at the downsides, not just the upsides.

Steve, again, to you and to all who need reminding...nobody denies "climate change" happens. The debate is around what causes it. Natural cycle or man-made ( anthropogenic)?a

Hard to buy, or even rent, the man-made thesis when man-made C02, fossil fuel use, SUVs, big bad Rebublicans and talk radio hosts did not exist throughout the past warming and cooling cycles of all the planets around the sun, ( including earth, by the way).

But, as I said earlier, if not for those who sound the trumpet, we would not know as much as we do about the temperature cycles of our earth and their relationship to our sun.

"Analysis of carbon dioxide in the ancient Antarctic ice showed that at no point in the past 650,000 years did levels approach today's carbon dioxide concentrations of around 380 parts per million (ppm). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could reach 450-550 ppm by 2050"
So I guess it's just a huge coincidence that CO2 levels are at the highest point in human history just as temperature of the planet is also at it's highest in recorded history.
What evidence do you have that this Climate Change is due to any natural planetary cycle? Please give some serious references. Because there's a whole lot of evidence that points to man-induced causes. Enough evidence as to be taken as established fact by scientists who have moved on, by and large, from the debate of whether it's man-caused, to more precisely understand the scope and mechanisms and alternatives.

Steve, read more than one source. It is not true that the highest CO2 levels have happened when the earth's atmosphere temp is high...or at least, this is a highly disputed claim, I should say.

I don't trust the IPCC reports any more than i trust any uni-cameral reporting system. All IPCC folks are assigned by governments...governments always want more power and money to flex the power with..ergo, only bigger government proponents will be assigned to produce reports, that happen to suppport the government wishes.

It is like trusting ONLY the....let's see, I am Catholic, so I will say the following..it would be like my trusting only Catholic appointed commissions on .....genetic sciences.

There have been many, many threads and posts with many, many sources cited for you to peruse.

I will name just one, for the non-scientist, called "Junk Science" dot com..it does a good job of listing many science sources to back up its well written summaries.

Or, just keep reading one viewpoint.

Perspective -
So you accept that climate change is occurring. Yet the only explanation you have is some vague statement about variations in the planetary cycle. When I ask for references to back this up you have nothing to offer.
I'm sorry. When I have a choice between an explanation supported by literally thousands of independent scientists around the world or the unsubstantiated claims of an anti-government cynic, the decision is easy.

Perspective -
And what makes you think I only read one source for my information? These days it's very difficult to be so blindered as to only see one source of information. However, of the many strands of information in this debate, the one I find far and away the most convincing is that of the IPCC. I like to think that's because the IPCC conclusions are based on evaluation of decades of studies by thousands of scientists from throughout the world, most of whom are independent, university-based scientists, not government quakes (if such a thing really exists). And their evidence is shown in forms that even I can understand: Web Link It's evidence like this that convinces me that we've got a problem. How can you look at this and come to any other conclusion?

Historically increases in CO 2 have followed increases in global temperature, not preceded it.
The evidence IPCC used is hopelessly corrupted and lacks credibility, they had a dream of a massive redistribution of wealth to the third world and tried to hijack science to achieve that goal-- IPCC failed and they are hopelessly discredited as are the " scientist" who went along with the scam

Again-- where is Al Gore-- he is as quite as a mouse these days

Sharon-
FACT: Carbon Dioxide causes the retention of heat in the atmosphere instead of letting it radiate out into space. Web Link
FACT: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased about 25% above normal levels, largely due to man-made emissions that began about the time of the industrial revolution and that has accelerated with increasing reliance on petroleum-based energy sources. Web Link
FACT: Average Global temperature has increased about 3/4 degree Centigrade (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past 100 years and the rate of change has increased to about .13 degree C per decade. Web Link
Who cares where Al Gore is? Deal with the facts and don't try to spin something that is science-based into a political diatribe.

Steve:

First link: This has been deleted by Yahoo Community Guidelines.

Second link: This link is government data and we all know what they want.

Third link: Is part of the lie (hockey stick) Michael Mann push to fake the data and Al (not a scientist) Gore tried to sell.

Lastly no one should have to bow down and hand over their hard earned money to these religious zealots in the name of their fake science. The worst part is what these liars have done to children in elementary schools. Propaganda about animals based on all this conjecture. It is sick, leave the kids alone.

Keep religion out of the schools and Schneider was a big part of this fraud.

I ask -
1) I don't know why Yahoo would delete one of their own links. Try the following link- the explanation is longer but much more complete:
FACT: Carbon Dioxide causes the retention of heat in the atmosphere instead of letting it radiate out into space. Web Link

2) OK, you don't trust the Oak Ridge labs (though you don't complain about the nuclear bombs they make) so how about an Australian researcher who looked at CO2 in an ice core from Antarctica, showing concentrations back 1,000 years: Web Link
Or research from the private Scripps Oceanographic Institute, which has been measuring CO2 levels since 1958 and from the top of Mauna Loa
since 1974: Web Link Doesn't matter - all the measurements of CO2 show basically the same marked increase in rate of accumulation in recent decades.

3) Mann may have used this instrumental temperature data to extend his proxy tree ring "temperatures" into modern times but it was not his data, nor has anyone questioned the basic validity of these land and sea based temperature readings. In fact, as I mentioned above, the National Research Council was asked to review Mann's methodology and their report noted flaws in technical aspects of Mann et al.'s methodology and data sets but concluded that the basic hockey stick shape was valid. Moreover, more than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs. This link is still valid: Web Link

I loose you when you start ranting about religious zealots - I have no idea what you're talking about.

To Sharon, Kevin, Walter -
Paul Krugman's Monday Column talks about the reasons why the Senate failed to take action on Climate change.
He notes:
"So why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? Let’s talk first about what didn’t cause the failure, because there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people.

First of all, we didn’t fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence — long-term temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to record lows — points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.

Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don’t believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod. . . .

So it wasn’t the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?

The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.

If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.

Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.

Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer."

But when DC — and the entire East Coast — was shellacked by an historic snow storm and deep freeze,Tom Friedman thought it was flat-out stupid to cite abnormal weather as evidence in political squabbles:

. There will be no international carbon market or constraint for some very practical reasons:

The West does not control global industry, energy use or carbon emissions;

The IEA has just reported China and India will double their already prodigious coal consumption by 2030 and increase global annual consumption from 6.7billion to 10billion tons;

China, India, Brazil and Indonesia will not keep their people in poverty by neglecting development (nor should they) and their only achievable means of powering that development is through coal-fired electricity generation;

No amount of Western austerity or any local action can make any appreciable difference in atmospheric CO2 levels;

Regardless of whether enhanced greenhouse will or will not cause detrimental change the correct response is to maximize availability of reliable, affordable power so the populace can defend themselves against temperature extremes and to maximize wealth generation so we can afford to develop and harden infrastructure against any adverse events.

Carbon constraint has never been a viable option despite any greenie dreams to the contrary and a no-regrets, full-on development path is the way to protect people against any possible negative effects.

Adaptation can work, mitigation can not.

Remember too that life on Earth booms with more CO2 and returning previously lost CO2 to the atmosphere is the best thing people have ever done for nature, albeit accidentally.

RE: Greed.
If, by regulation, you halve the energy brought to market, you double the price of that energy. The "greedy" energy producers will make their same profit on half the investment and expense. Competition is the only reason they expand their facilities.

Krugman has not once been correct in predicting anything related to his field, ( economics) in the many years he has been predicting, let alone anything outside his field ( which he feels free to comment on nonetheless, this being a perfect example).

Remember, his "Nobel Memorial" prize was for "new" theory..one untested, I might add, much like the "new theories" of marxism and later Keynes were hailed as "revolutionary", but in fact were complete failures once enacted.

He leapt from academics, which we all know apply so well to the real world, to "public opinionator", because of his academic "credentials".

However, don't let that fool you. I challenge anyone to show me one piece of advice we have "followed" that has worked, or one prediction of his that has been correct.

But, I digress. His appalling economics aside, what makes anyone think he can comment on anything "climate" related with any degree of credibility? He will always, without any doubt at all, support anything which takes more money from individuals or businesses, and puts it in the hands of a few politicians to use to further their own ends.

If you know that, you know exactly where he will stand on any issue. Just follow the government expansion pathway.

The 'greed' is on the part of those who are hungry for power and money which is not theirs to flex or spend. Crying "greed" has become like crying "racism"...follow the power and money to more government control, and you will see the real objective in a policy supported by those crying "greed".

Give me the competing self-interest "greed" of hundreds of millions of people in the nation and around the world over a few greedy individuals in government wanting to greedily take everyone else's money they have earned, and greedily take power from them in order to to "regulate" them.

No. Back off.

Regardless of what Krugman ( or anyone else) wants us to believe to save their faces, it died because more and more elected folks are realizing that Americans are watching them and seeing who is voting against our interests, and who isn't.

In this case, more and more Americans, even Brits, are waking up to the hoodwinking of the CO2 alarmists who have done nothing but use cherry-picked and falsified science to bludgeon us with sky is falling scenarios to try to scare us into giving them more power and money so they can "save us" from ourselves. God save me from helpful government!! Remember Gore's ticking clock? We have only 5 years left before we are "scorched"..um..ok..In the meantime, his fortunes have quadrupled how many times from his apocolyptic vision ( and carbon footprint industry, let us not forget)

The only ones left voting the leftist agenda are those in far left Districts who will be re-elected even after their funeral, and those who are committing political kamikaze for that nice little money-making lobbying job after they don't run for office again.

Finally, we are pushing back in this cultural/political war. I just hope we can push it back to something like the Reagan borders of politics. I worry we are over the tipping point between propoganda that has replaced thoughtful education, media, and a hugely grown and entitled government and "entitled" population, but with fortitude maybe we can turn this Titanic around.

Steve: go check out all the other threads on Global Warming that PA online has had for all the "links" you want. The info is there if you want it.

OR, if you don't want to do that much work, start with a great layman's site called Junkscience dot com or junkscience.com It is a tongue-in-cheek named site, but backed with many great sources for its information.

Steve:

There is noway to control what you seek to control Steve. Al Gore and Schneider were at the forefront of the propaganda machine preaching action/control/taxes. Now with Schneider passing and Gore's sex problems there seem to be less hysteria. Perhaps real - repeatable - transparent science can take place. Then our little nation of 307,000,000 million can change the minds of the other two nations of 2,465,000,000 people if what you say is true.

Sharon -
There is so much wrong with your letter that I don't know where to begin. Just take your statement
"Remember too that life on Earth booms with more CO2 and returning previously lost CO2 to the atmosphere is the best thing people have ever done for nature, albeit accidentally"
Do you realize CO2 levels are approaching the highest levels ever recorded and are continuing to rise? Web Link So not only is the average global temperature increasing dramatically Web Link leading to recent years being the hottest years ever recorded Web Link with as yet unmeasured impacts on ecosystems around the world, the world's oceans are becoming more acidic as CO2 dissolves in the sea water, to the point where corals, oysters, and other CaCO3-based sealife are suffering and dying as a result Web Link
So exactly how is this increased CO2 that we're been emitting the best thing we've ever done for nature?
You're nuts!

Perspective -
You say Krugman has made no correct calls at all? How about these?
1) Krugman argued that the Bush tax cuts enlarged the budget deficit without improving the economy, and that they enriched the wealthy – worsening income distribution in the US
2) In August 2005, after Alan Greenspan expressed concern over housing markets, Krugman criticized Greenspan's earlier reluctance to regulate the mortgage and related financial markets.
3) Krugman has repeatedly expressed his view that Greenspan and Phil Gramm are the two individuals most responsible for causing the subprime crisis. Krugman points to Greenspan and Gramm for the key roles they played in keeping derivatives, financial markets, and investment banks unregulated.

Al Gore is the face and body of the AGW brand----why do we not hear from him anymore?
He made the mistake of making AGW a partisan issue-- appealing to the 20% on the left and alienating the 80% who are conservative or moderate.
Schneider did the same.
trying to change the logo from AGW to climate change was a disaster-- everyone knows the climate changes all the time--
the fad/movement has lost credibility and people have lost interest-- China will build solar panels, wind mills and batteries to sell to the west-- but they will produce them with coal power and they will not use them--except batteries in cars and bikes to save the import costs of oil.
Natural gas can solve our transportation energy needs for the next 150yrs
Americans just do not buy " the sky is falling" AGW anymore they have lost trust-- Gore and Schneider should have socialized there concepts across party lines and appealed to realists-- they did not and their god is dead as a result

Perspective -
You recommended a site called "junkscience.com" as the source of truth in the Climate Change debate. I tried to go there but the server was down. While waiting I did a search on the web site and found the following:
"JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com. . . Milloy's attacks are often notable for their vicious tone, which appears calculated to lower rather than elevate scientific discourse."
Looks to me like the ones get paid to publish to fit an ideology are your primary sources of information. No wonder you're so confused about Climate Change. My recommendation to you is that you avoid sites like junkscience if you want to learn anything factual.
Of course, I don't think you're the sort to be bothered by facts.

Funny that junkscience.com and its creator Steven J. Milloy should come up in this tribute thread to Stephen Schneider. In his review of the book "Merchant of Doubt" Dr. Schneider had a few things to say about Milloy and his ilk:

"“With the carefulness of historians and the skills of master storytellers, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway lay out the sordid history of tobacco industry protectionists, who framed the debate as scientifically ‘unproven,’ gaining decades of market share for those merchants of death—who knew all along the risks of their products. Merchants of Doubt shows that some of the very same individuals were part of the plans to frame the climate change debate as unproven, using the same tried and true tactics of misrepresentation of facts, non-representative scientists, and industry-friendly legislators. Again, tried and true public re-framing of reality worked. But now all this chicanery is exposed for the deception it has been in Oreskes and Conway’s powerful and timely work.”—Stephen H Schneider, Professor, Stanford University, author of Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate

It's appropriate to end this thread with the words of Dr. Schneider himself.

Ironic because Gore supported the tobacco industry through out his career in the Senate and his families fortune is from tobacco- he only denounced it in his presidential campaign for--- the votes--- and then he founded AGW as another way of getting the gullible to surrender their dollars, he was also against abortion until he was for it.
The Greens chose a poor spokesman in Gore but they are stuck with him---why is he quite as a mouse?
he got 1/16 of a Nobel Prize and has earned a billion dollars out of the scam -- does he owe us nothing in return?
Wont get fooled again--

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Actually we think that Gores massive profits from the tobacco industry and his farms puts Schneider in to the correct context-that - he got snowed and fooled by Gore--- please give any evidence that Gore was not involved in the tobacco lobby in most of his career-- thanks

This is called truth seeking-- cults call it add- where is Gore he is quite as a mouse

My deal still goes:
Before any restrictions on our free choice are approved based on climate change, require that the change be input to Hansen's magic box climate prediction program, and that a measurable change for the better be demonstrated by that program's output. Lacking such "proof", sacrifices are like throwing virgins into volcanoes, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

Any update on the memorial service and is Al Gore attending, speaking?
Any memorial service should be treated with respect and reverence and not used for political purposes by any party or faction.
When is it?, the family must have had a private event-- RIP-- when is the public event @ Stanford?

Steve,..go to Junk Science and decide for yourself. Read the citations/books mentioned.

Try thinking for yourself.

As for your assertions that Krugman called the "Bush tax cuts" right..he was dead wrong. Please note that the top 10% paid MORE of a percent of the Fed Bill after the "Bush tax cuts", and that we had the MOST fed income in tax coffers..ever...in 2005, topped only by 2006.

Greenspan was not reluctant to 'regulate" the housing market..unfortunately, he went along with the Community Reinvestment Act which resulted in social engineering regulations for mortgages..and was the match that lit the economic wildfire.

Krugman is a fool..."unregulated" I wish the markets HAD been..unfortunately, they were REGULATED in the late 90s under Clinton which resulted in the derivatives being completely changed...all with the happy pushing by Dodd and Frank, of the Finance Committee.

Krugman is a chronic liar, who will ALWAYS call for more regulation, more government, more taxes..period. He would have been very happy having been the advisor to Greece for the last 30 years, since they did what he is always saying we should do ( and which we, unfortunately, are doing more and more of. He is the modern Keynes of FDR to our Obama)

Not once has he EVER been correct.

Don't be intellectually lazy. I challenge you to play "devil's advocate" to yourself and research the "rest of the story" on anything you believe to be true. You will be shocked as you realize how much propoganda we are fed, like little open mouthed birds.

Sharon - Perspective -
Cartoon for Climate Skeptics: Web Link

Thanks for the posters who gave me some credit for my post.

I have come to be less harsh on climate deniers. My real interest has become why are they so passionate about denying climate change? It is getting harder and harder with each ton of CO2 added to the atmosphere, yet they persist.

Scientists in Australia have received death threats for their work. What in the world is going on here? One meek scientist giving a talk on his research was confronted by a man with a hang man's noose who suggested he might use it on the speaker! With this kind of emotion we can suspect something is going on other than disputing facts.

We are sadly marching onward toward some kind of very unpleasant climate future - my children, my grandchildren - every one of us who lives to see it. Do Deniers think we can just dump millions of tons of carbon into our precious, thin, life-giving atmosphere with no result whatever?

For those who don't know, 97-98% of climate scientists say global warming is real and it is man-caused. All the academies of science of the nations of the world say the same. Are all these trained scientists doing this for grant money? (most academies give not receive grants). Are they all doing it because they are "liberals"?

It does not look at all hopeful regarding stopping or even slowing CO2 emissions. That leaves Plan B which is putting some sort of solar dimming material into the atmosphere to reduce sunlight hitting earth. That is an iffy and uncertain path. Plan C is preparing to save the most of humanity possible in polar regions where the great climate scientist of the UK, James Lovelock, says survival may be possible.

It is just so sad. Man was given a pristine, beautiful blue gem of a planet with vibrant seas, forests, rivers and lakes. It was bountiful and supported us for thousands of years. But we are a long way towards destroying this marvelous miracle planet - for money.

Walter, one question. How hot will it have to get before you say, "It's too damned hot! Something must be causing this crop and people killing heat!"

"This may be all a natural part of evolution" a very wise man said to me in Trinidad. He suggested life evolves to an "intelligent" form. Then discovers the work saving and money making power of burning fossil fuel, then burns it like crazy, sending more and more CO2 up into his life giving atmosphere until heat snuffs out life. Lights out for the "intelligent" life and all life.

How do I become a Climate Scientologist? What must I learn to believe? What are the best ways of making others believe this like 97% of qualified? climate scientologists do without relying on fallacies? Help!

"How do I become a Climate Scientologist?"

Start with facts:

1.) The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally... Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

Continue forward...

Web Link

Climate change,sure, smoke and mirror , when is it going to stop?

Ots a good weekend to thik about how CA will be effected by climate change in the next couple decades.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?