Demonizing S. Schneider
jshe...@vnet.ibm.com
Cooling" (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
> "The dramatic importance of climate changes to the world's
> future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because
> we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have
> conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear
> language that the climate threat could be as awesome as any we
> might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against
> that threat deserve immediate consideration. At a minimum, public
> awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte's
> provocative work is a good place to start."
> --Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, Deputy Head
> Climate Project, National Center
> for Atmospheric Research
Scott Nudds replied:
>I don't see any reference to cooling here John Boy. And the statement by
>Schneider clearly refers to the book as "provocative". You know what
>provocative means don't you? It means that the thing the term refers to
>will <provoke>. In the context in which it is use, it means the book
>will <provoke thought> on the subject of "climate change".
>
>Clearly Schneider was well ahead of his time in recognizing the reality
>of climate change. It would appear that he recognized 20 years ago, what
>some fools today still deny... Climate change.
>
>Congratulations Dr. Schneider.
The references to cooling are in the book "The Cooling".
A couple of quotes, (p. 29):
"What of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect? It is
overrated, said Drs. S.I. Rasool and S.H. Schneider of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space
Studies in 1971. ..."
also (p. 74):
"Thus, further cooling is likely. Only a fool would gamble
it will not continue, for what is being wagered is our future on this
planet. ..."
Hm, the above sounds vaguely familiar, I wonder if Ponte and
Nudds are related.
James B. Shearer (email j...@watson.ibm.com)
D. Braun
On Fri, 15 Mar 1996 jshe...@VNET.IBM.COM wrote:
snip
> I posted the following Schneider plug for the book "The
> Cooling" (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
snip
> Scott Nudds replied:
> >will <provoke thought> on the subject of "climate change".
> >
> >Clearly Schneider was well ahead of his time in recognizing the reality
> >of climate change. It would appear that he recognized 20 years ago, what
> >some fools today still deny... Climate change.
> >
> >Congratulations Dr. Schneider.
>
> The references to cooling are in the book "The Cooling".
> A couple of quotes, (p. 29):
> "What of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect? It is
> overrated, said Drs. S.I. Rasool and S.H. Schneider of the National
> Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space
> Studies in 1971. ..."
> also (p. 74):
> "Thus, further cooling is likely. Only a fool would gamble
> it will not continue, for what is being wagered is our future on this
> planet. ..."
> Hm, the above sounds vaguely familiar, I wonder if Ponte and
> Nudds are related.
> James B. Shearer (email j...@watson.ibm.com)
James Shearer:
I think that somehow you missed Scott's point. Simply harping on the
fact that some atmospheric scientists were 180 degrees off more than 20
years ago has little weight in the current debate about the probable
outcome of global warming (which now has a concensus on the side of it
being a fact). Your form of argument reminds me of a Jehovah's Witness
tract which tried to debunk evolution; it featured an artist's conception
of "scientists" around a table wildly arguing, and seemingly at each
others throats; the reader was supposed to conclude that because scientists
couldn't agree on the theory of evolution, it did not exist. What was
misrepresented was that any credible scientist has accepted the fact of
evolution, but that intelectual debate REQUIRES that there be
disagreement as to the mechanics of such a complicated process. The
alternative is dogma--- in that case, a literal interpretation of the
BIble, ensuring a reserved seat on the Golden Escalator or whatever.
It stands to reason that with advances in computer technology, and 20
more years of weather data that the concensus that global warming is a
fact is on more stable ground than cooling was. The argument now is over
what the effects will be, in addition to the mechanics of the process.
It is really hard to argue with the fact that
CO2 has continued to increase along with other heat-trapping gases, and that
this trend will continue. Personally, I have not tried to take
apart GCMs and test the many assumptions these models make; that there
are different GCMs, that are producing different predictions, is simply a
reflection of scientific inquiry. I haven't heard about results
predicting global cooling, have you? I tend to agree with the
acknowledged concensus that warming has begun, because I believe that
concensus among scientists in this field is a powerful validation. As a
scientist myself, I recognize the value put on objective analysis; for
scientists, that is their most powerful claim to credibility. Any
scientist can "fudge data", make false assumptions knowingly, generalize
beyond what observations warrent, etc.; however, sooner or later, they
get caught. So far, I don't see any global climate change scientists
going the way of the Piltdown hoax, or theories on race superiority or
acquired characteristics.
Dave Braun
Andrew Russell
> Any
>scientist can "fudge data", make false assumptions knowingly, generalize
>beyond what observations warrent, etc.; however, sooner or later, they
>get caught. So far, I don't see any global climate change scientists
>going the way of the Piltdown hoax, or theories on race superiority or
>acquired characteristics.
>
> Dave Braun
You forget the real data about Schneider: He is a fearmonger who promotes
the latest trendy 'crisis' in order to sell books. He *admits* to being a
liar when it comes to environmental causes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Schneider, proponent of global warming and ozone depletion,
at a 1989 Smithsonian conference on environmentalism: "We need to
get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. That,
of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to
offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have... Each of us has to decide
what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Rich Puchalsky
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Steven Schneider, proponent of global warming and ozone depletion,
: at a 1989 Smithsonian conference on environmentalism: "We need to
: get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. That,
: of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to
: offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements
: and little mention of any doubts one might have... Each of us has to decide
: what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest a new measure of how polluted sci.environment has become, the
Schneider Smithsonian Quote Count. I think the SSQC is about 8 for 1996
so far.
I should really get back to work on the proposed RFD. I had started making
one in the proper style favored by newsgroup gurus, but work intervened,
and making an RFD requires some sustained attention. I may have more time
over the weekend.
Anything new on auto-moderators?
--
my new sci.environment web page - http://www.upx.net/user/richp/sci_env.html