Comments on: Stanford Protects Stephen Schneider from Public Embarrassment

By: Chris m

Chris m — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:43:20 +0000

“I was initially in 1970 and ‘71 more worried about cooling.”

And here he is in 1979
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB2ugPM0cRM&playnext_from=TL&videos=Nhsu_Cf9KOo&feature=sub

So what is your point again? Fucking liar!

By: Dave McK

Dave McK — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:31:01 +0000

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html the apocalyptics were disgusting people for a long time over at IPCC. note Pielke in the old posts, too.

By: Climategate: Debate Gets Heated at Copenhagen Climate Conference |

Climategate: Debate Gets Heated at Copenhagen Climate Conference | — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:58:53 +0000

[...] Currently, Schneider very publicly champions the fight against potential “climate change that’s catastrophic in the next century.” But Stanford’s actions against the filmmakers on Schneider’s behalf also stem from the filmmakers’ questioning of Schneider regarding his publicly-stated assertions during the 70s that man was contributing to global cooling. (read entire article) [...]

By: eleven

eleven — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:06:35 +0000

Looks like Mr. Schneider still has his minions squelching any dissenting views or questions about his inconsistencies. (hmmm…very much like those involved in Climategate.) When questioned at a PRESS Conference about Climategate his little assistant had armed UN security officers remove Mr. McAleer from the Press conference! If you can’t take the heat… (the REAL heat, not the “global warming” mantra that is repeated like umpa lumpas).

By: ANDJELKO

ANDJELKO — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:37:38 +0000

Fusion of madness in the brains of physicists and it is “wonderful” to manipulate with politicians,
that they can physicists live cheaply in mechanical way.

By: FarmerTom

FarmerTom — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:50:04 +0000

If the film makers actually have a release from this guy, which they should have gotten from him when he was interviewed, then Stanford has not a lawyer to stand on. If they *didn’t* get a release, then they have no one to blame but themselves for gross stupidity.

By: Tim Ford

Tim Ford — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:18:44 +0000

You could also make the case that banning a film where a Stanford professor says he was against global warming before he was for it is another example of the university infringing on free speech…

By: Steve Case

Steve Case — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:12:23 +0000

Then there’s this quote from Dr. Schneider:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Well we’re getting plenty of scary stories, that’s for sure!