YIKES!!! TEXAS A&M Has 2 Steve Schroeders….and naturally because I haven’t eaten any crow lately one of them is indeed a Climatologist. This hurts me more than you know because the rest of this post was much better researched. But fair is fair and I blew it when I screwed up on identifying Schroeder, sorry for misleading you.
UPDATED: Vicious Photoshop showing Polar bears where no polar bears would tread….
Lies don’t count when you are an Global Warming Evangelical on a mission to save the world from things you believe are bad. Well that’s the way the environmental lobby feels. Witness this latest attempt to scare us by the Guardian.
I mean holy smokes how much uglier can it get…if this is what is going to happen if we keep driving our Corvettes then I am selling mine tomorrow. Sheesh…look at that ass on Billary…oh my god the humanity. Alright obviously this is Photoshop after all no self respecting Polar Bear would be caught dead in the same picture with Dukakis and Kerry. But Chavez is pretty cool looking with his sand pail bra…heh? Thanks to Free Republic….hehe. Yes I take global warming seriously…yessireee bob. Reeeeeal serious. Oops sorry for the photo but I couldn’t pass it up.
In an article impugning the morals of AEI they have the nerve to list Steve Schroeder as a “scientist” when he is simply a typically boring leftwing poet. Never realized that poets are experts on Global Warming.
One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. “You wouldn’t know if some of the other authors might say nothing’s going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it’s not our fault,” said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
Here is Steve Schroeders short bio at Texas A&M.
[Steven Schroeder] grew up in the Texas Panhandle. He’s currently teaching in China, but his website provides the following for a bio: “his poetry continues to be rooted in the experience of the Plains, which teaches attention to “nothing that is not there” but more especially to “the nothing that is.” His poetry has appeared or is forthcoming in the Cresset, Georgetown Review, Halcyon, Karamu, Mid-America Poetry Review, Petroglyph, Poetry East, Rhino, Texas Review, and other literary journals. His most recent collection is Revolutionary Patience, published by Virtual Artists Collective in 2004.”
Course the environmentalists feel like they have a righteous duty to lie to get their message across.
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
It might behoove us to know that dear Dr. Schneider has been all over the thermometer in his predictions of doom and gloom. Up or down who cares the result is the same, death and destruction and guess what, remarkably the cure is the same in both terrible scenarios, hobble modern society.
Schneider received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics from Columbia University in 1971. He studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In 1971 Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a 1-d radiative climate model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:
- However, it is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection… should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.
One of the questions we need to ask is whether these Environmental Evangelicals are on mission is to save us from global warming or if global warming is merely a tool to bash our way of life. For instance:
“Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion “gift”
Lets not forget that this latest attack on Modern Society is coming from the United Nations which has not shown any great brilliance on any particular issue. Why would we take a report produced by people like Tim Wirth and completely modify our society. Tim Wirth is a spectacular pillar of leftist nonsense…consider:
Wirth has also been a consistent advocate of the global warming theory. While in the Senate, he co-sponsored legislation that would, among other things, give priority to international aid programs that “enhance access to… bicycles, carts, pack animals, and similar affordable, non-motorized vehicles” for the purpose of reducing use of fossil fuels (greenhouse gases), relegating the recipient nations to a perpetual Third World status. Yet, even he has admitted doubts about the global warming theory: “We’ve got to rid the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Most recently, Timothy Wirth was at the center of controversy when the Clinton Administration decided to deport 13 Chinese women who sought asylum in the United States to avoid forced abortion or sterilization under communist China’s one-child policy. By offering asylum to the women, Wirth explained, “we could potentially open ourselves up to just about everybody in the world saying ‘I don’t want to plan my family, therefore I deserve political asylum.” Apparently, Wirth believes government forced abortions and sterilization constitutes “family planning.”
Then we have our friends to the North with their very own moonbats…
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald
What do real Scientists say about “Global Warming”?
Consider Dr. Jane E. Francis a honest to goodness scientist in exactly the right field with exactly the right background to comment on the Climate:
” What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate.” Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, ” It’s really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly… What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change.”
Or consider Petr Chylek’s comments on why scientists use scare tactics.
“Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)
Dr. John R. Christy is not impressed:
“…the Earth was evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800s so that warming in the past century may be part of this natural recovery.”
Dr. John R. Christy
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama in Huntsville) (5)
Then this from the Illinois State Museum.
“If ‘ice age’ is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.” Illinois State Museum
And if the weather is changing then take a look at a actual scientific study backed by some of those things that seem to be so rare these days in so many different parts of science, facts. Sorry there is very little hysteria in this article so I can see why it isn’t very popular.
Willie Soon is a physicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory.
The purpose of this article is to give you some details about the research which my colleagues (especially Sallie Baliunas and Eric Posmentier) and I have done in studying the controversial relationship between the Sun’s energy output and Earth’s temperature, in short, the sun-climate connection. Despite what you may have heard before about sun-climate studies, there are in fact demonstrable connections between our Sun’s changing energy outputs and Earth’s climate. This paper will use the best information currently available to explain what we do and do not know about the many aspects of the sun-climate connection
And we have this extremely illuminating paper:
UNDERSTANDING COMMON CLIMATE CLAIMS
(THIS IS A DRAFT COPY OF A PAPER THAT WILL APPEAR IN THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2005 ERICE MEETING OF THE WORLD
FEDERATION OF SCIENTISTS ON GLOBAL EMERGENCIES)
RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
After spending years describing the physics of climate to audiences concerned with global warming, I came to the realization that I was speaking to people who were not aware of the basic premises of the issue. The listeners were typically under the impression that the case for climate alarm was self-evident and strong, and that concern for the underlying physics constituted simply nit-picking in order to see if there were any remotely possible chinks in the otherwise solid case. Given that most people (including scientists) can rarely follow 15 minute discussions of somewhat complex science, the conclusion of the listeners is that the objections are too obscure to challenge their basic prejudice.
I decided, therefore, to examine why people believed what they believed. What I found was that they had been presented mainly three claims for which widespread scientific agreement existed. While these claims may be contested, they are indeed widely accepted. The only problem is that these claims do not suggest alarm. Rather, upon careful analysis, they make clear that catastrophic implications are grossly unlikely, but cannot be rigorously disproved. Thus, the real situation is that the supporters of alarm are the real skeptics who cling to alarm against widely accepted findings. The profound confusion pertaining to this situation is only reinforced by quibbling over the basic points of agreement. Such quibbling merely convinces the public that the basic points of agreement must be tantamount to support for alarm. We will begin by analyzing the popular consensus.
So run around screaming that the sky is falling if you must but please leave me out of your preparations for disaster. Thanks to Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective