Saturday
Dec122009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Schneider doesn't want to acknowledge Climategate
Dec 12, 2009 Climate: CRU Climate: Sceptics Is calling security a reasonable response to someone asking a question about the Climategate emails? Global warming promoter Stephen Schneider seemed to think this was easier than trying to respond to the questions.
Reader Comments (12)
Betting that Al Gore regrets inventing the internet nowadays.
As long as he wasn not trying to stop the press conference (and it does not appear that the reporting was doing that- merely asking a question) the response was unreasonable. On the otherhand publicity like this is bad for the alarmists.
32, 000 youtube views 12 Dec this should go viral!
It's here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI
The warmists avoid questions and to so-called 'deniers' don't get to answer them. Maybe there's a clue in there somewhere.
The arrogance displayed by Schneider appears typical of the behaviour of these academics - as has been commented on elsewhere they behave as if cliamte change were a religion so any questioning of their fundamental belief (that we are the cause of it) is met with hostility or simply ignored as irrelvant. Regretably a number of "leading scientists" have fallen into the trap of being advocates rather than independent researchers pursuing facts/truth.
The good news is that the Internet provides a mechanism for bypassing the zealots and their current control over the MSM. The tide of informatin will turn and balance will return to reporting on environment matters - its just a case of how long it takes for reality to dawn on the politicians!
From where I sit, Not Surprised, the politicians believe the 'consensus' and God alone knows what and how long it will take for them to change their minds.
For example, the fact that Gordon Brown has committed £1.5 billion of money that we simply cannot afford illustrates how totally unhinged from reality he has become!
Interesting that Schneider regards this as a matter of lack of trust. I was thinking the same thing.
Here is what Schneider famously said in 1989. It explains, in my view, how the Warmists took the first steps down the road to fraudulent science. It didn't have to be true, it only had to serve the true cause.
“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 the 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 climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails 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.” Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989
Why am I not surprised ...
Its another piece in the puzzle showing that this is not about science, its about politics of a certain kind.
It might be worthwhile to re-read the history books about the 'Great Terror' under Stalin - Lyssenkoism being a case in point.
I have to tell you that I really dislike this guy, personally. I stood up in World Bank auditorium in the 1990s some time to ask him some simple, naive, questions about what was already being termed "the science," (as if it were some side issue). This was in the run-up to the first IPCC, and he was some kind of chairman or guru or spokesperson already (having been elected by whom?), and he totally dissed in a public forumwhat were honest inquiries as to how we knew that this homeostatic mechanism called the Earth was suddenly, IN OUR SPECIAL TIME out of all the millennia that had preceded us being so unequivocally screwed up by us. I thought, this just isn't right. It isn't really in the spirit of <B>science.
dunno. I got the impression that it was the UN lackeys that had called security because he refused to give back the microphone to the cute-looking lackey until he had got some answers.
Certainly they were not permitting the asking of multiple awkward questions about deleting data - quite who objected and why is unclear.
Prof. Stephen Schneider, long hair, bell bottom pants, the whole hippy dippy thing, is in this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b2_g4ww6es talking about the coming ice age circa the late 1970s.
His part starts at 0:33 seconds.