"Climate Warrior" Stephen Schneider Dies at Age 65

|

Stanford University climate scientist and fierce "climate warrior" Stephen Schneider died of an apparent heart attack while on a flight from Sweden to London on Monday. Schneider has long been at the forefront of arguing for massive government intervention to address man-made global climate change. In a recent interview in Stanford Magazine, Schneider opined about the differences between ideologues and scientists:

[Q.] How do you respond to the perception that scientists are friends of the leftand enemies of the right?

[A.] Scientists get associated with the left not because they're really in the left. It's because they have a particular belief system that is more likely embraced by Democrats: people not on the far left—because the far left is just as crazy radical in its deep belief as the far right—but middle-center left. [There is a] great American divide. The deep red states, the ones who want to teach creationism as if somehow belief was science, when science is method, are in what I call the faith-trust value system, where evidence that overthrows deep faith is somehow a real violation of their deep ethics. Those of us in science come from a completely different paradigm—much more likely in California, especially coastal California, and New York and the deep blue states—which I call doubt-test, where no matter how cherished our beliefs, if you have enough evidence kicking you in the face to the contrary, you change your mind. That is blasphemy to certain groups. This is in my view a fairly dangerous value dichotomy because in the end, if you absolutely cling to absolute values, then all you get is subjugation and violence. That's where we end up with wars and with radical movements that cannot compromise and kill first.

Scientists also create some of their own trouble because we're a very snooty, elitist bunch, and we believe [in] a very high-knowledge entry barrier before you're even entitled to have an opinion over technical issues. Part of that entry barrier is high because we're so incompetent in explaining things simply. You really do have to know what you're talking about before you have an opinion on facts, but you also have to explain the facts simply. If you use metaphors, you can get the average person in an hour to know what they need to know to make a good value judgment.

Fair enough. In testimony at a 2003 OECD workshop on climate change, Schneider stated [pdf]:

My own personal value position, given the vast uncertainties in both climate science and impacts estimations, is to enact (and act on) policies to slow down the rate at which we disturb the climate system. This can both buy us time to understand better what may happen—a process that will take many more decades—and lead to the development of lower-cost decarbonisation options… Slowing down the pressure on the climate system is the "insurance policy" against a number of potentially dangerous irreversibilities and abrupt non-linear events.

However, Schneider's preference for a precautionary approach (a.k.a. raising the price of energy and slowing down economic growth) in addressing climate change is ideological, not a fact about the world. Perhaps a better "insurance policy" would be to speed up economic growth, thus endowing future generationa with the wealth and new technologies to address whatever climate change occurs.

In any case, climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., who frequently disagreed with Schneider, sadly notes:

He and I have interacted for several decades and I was always impressed by his openness to engage in scientific debate. Even when we disagreed on issues, he permitted my views to be heard, such as the time, in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Climatic Change, I was able in 2002 to present a paper on problems with the IPCC assessment report. He published a companion article at the same time by Mike McCracken, and I have urged climate scientists to read both of these perspectives. Steve's openness allowed this constuctive scientific debate to occur.

To get a sense of how Schneider personally balanced climate and economic risks, take a look at his Edge interview here.

NEXT: Reason Writers on the Tube: Radley Balko on Penn & Teller's Bullshit! Tomorrow Night

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Global warming claims another.

    Or Bush did it.

    1. It was the hockey stick. Someplace there’s a liberal reporter laughing until her eyes bug out.

  2. “Climate Warrior” Stephen Schneider Dies at Age 65

    65 years too late, I say. And I am being kind.

    1. C’mon man. Have a heart. Oops.

  3. Scientists get associated with the left not because they’re really in the left. It’s because they have a particular belief system that is more likely embraced by Democrats:

    That system would be the, “We are smarter than you and know what you need system.”

  4. My own personal value position[…]is to enact (and act on) policies to slow down the rate at which we disturb the climate system. This can both buy us time to understand better what may happen — a process that will take many more decades — and lead to the development of lower-cost decarbonisation options

    Talk about a guy who planned for the future – his future, as a tax-fed parasite. He could not have died soon enough. Good riddance.

  5. Tough crowd.

    1. That’s because he wasn’t funny. Merely creepy.

    2. Death doesn’t absolve you from the stupid shit you said while alive.

    3. Geez, no kidding. I don’t know much about the guy, but Bailey’s description makes him sound like a decent, reasonable guy.

      1. I hear Hitler was nice guy!

        The thread was missing a good Godwin.

        1. I heard Godwin was an asshole.

          1. You know who else was an asshole?

            Hitler.

      2. Re: Mike Laursen,

        but Bailey’s description makes him sound like a decent, reasonable guy.

        That’s Bailey, all right. Because anybody who asks for massive government impositions on people’s freedoms cannot be a “decent guy”.

        1. Again, I disagree. Lots of people support massive government impositions on people’s freedoms because they grew up absorbing that kind of thinking from everyone around them.

          The important thing is whether someone is willing to consider arguments that go against what he or she has always thought. Again, I don’t know much about Schneider, but from Bailey’s description he sounds like the kind of guy who did listen to people who disagree with him and didn’t brand them as evil.

          1. Re: Mike Larsen,

            Lots of people support massive government impositions on people’s freedoms because they grew up absorbing that kind of thinking from everyone around them.

            That’s as lame as the “I was only following orders” excuse, or the “my lawyers told me it was not torture” excuse.

            1. So, in your book, it makes someone evil if they have the wrong opinion about some political issue, even if they’re willing to listen to and consider other points of view?

  6. This is in my view a fairly dangerous value dichotomy because in the end, if you absolutely cling to absolute values, then all you get is subjugation and violence.

    How profound. If one holds to the absolute value that your life is your own, how can you leave room for your reasonable enslavement?

    Fortunately for us, he was only a scientist and not a policy maker; he wasn’t much of a philosopher, that is obvious.

    1. Yes, it’s just that clinging to absolute values that make the Amish so violent.

      1. Actually the Amish aren’t that clingy when the situation calls for it. They have no problem seeking medical help to save a life. Your analogy is kind of silly and misguided, since they will embrace things that are in their best interest, but at the fringe of the scope of their beliefs.

        1. Yes. They also use electricity in their milking operations.

    2. I particularly appreciated the implication that leftists test their assumptions. Frankly, leftists have even less desire to have their assumptions challenged than the most stiff-necked clergy member.

  7. while on a flight

    Like a priest dying with his wang through a glory hole. Cute.
    ONE LESS LIMO

  8. I bet Sarah Spitz would have given him some help because he appeared to have some sweet lefty views.

  9. Oh, and for the rest of you so-called “Climate Warriors”:

    Why don’t you imitate this guy and leave the rest of humanity alone?

    1. Don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think.

  10. “…where no matter how cherished our beliefs, if you have enough evidence kicking you in the face to the contrary, you change your mind.”

    unless you’re a liberal politician and the topic is economics.

    1. “…where no matter how cherished our beliefs, if you have enough evidence kicking you in the face to the contrary, you change your mind.”

      And of course the “evidence” is evidence because we say it’s evidence.

  11. It’s because they have a particular belief system that is more likely embraced by Democrats:

    where no matter how cherished our beliefs, if you have enough evidence kicking you in the face to the contrary, you change your mind.

    AHAHAHAHAHahahaha . . .

    Did Friday Funnies come early, or what?

    1. It can’t be. You seemed to find it to actually be funny.

      1. Now that’s funny!

    2. That is some industrial-strength RDF at work.

      Remember kids: you are never the partisan, just the other guy.

  12. He’s just eliminated a source of co2.

    I’m pleased.

  13. And, of course, the sweet, sweet irony of a hardcore warmenista dying . . . on an international flight. Way to make sure your last act on earth is spewing CO2, Mr. Climate Warrior Guy.

    1. Not to mention ruining the flight of the person in the seat next to his.

  14. Well, on a flight, that would be like Al Gore passing out and his heart exploding in a massage parlor, one WITH central air and those old style flush toilets.

    1. I’d wager Mr. Gore has exploded in many massage parlors.

      1. Aww geeeeez guys. I’m tryin to eat lunce here.

        1. Sorry. Don’t fear though. Odds are the visual would just be of Gore’s belly since at that time he probably hadn’t seen his willie in years.

    1. Whoa! Stop the fucking presses, liberals celebrate when their guy gets elected. People need to know about this…WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

      Next you’ll be telling me that John McCain was disappointed that he didn’t prevail.

      1. McCain never claimed to be a neutral observer of his own election.

        1. Like I give a fuck.

          Let the statists quibble over who controls the duplicitous media…I don’t have a dog in this fight.

          Next month the liberals will be decrying the “corporate controlled media”, and the behemoth inexorably grows.

    2. In all fairness the blubbering is fucking hilarious.

      I have several mildly retarded friends that acted like this. I am really enjoying the BBQs this summer.

      1. I think I can safely say that there is a high probability that I would enjoy ridiculing all of the people listed until they “burst into tears.”

        Jesus the koolaid must be triple strength or the Progressive exile was particularly hard on these chaps.

      2. You’re inviting Epi to your BBQs?

        1. Na, Epi has nothing on the level of retard some of my friends reached during the 08′ election. I was amazed. It was like a they all turned into 12 year old a Justin Bieber concert.

    3. That Ackerman is just a straight-up douche! Not that that’s news either.

      And Alterman’s “Fucking Nascar retards”? Wow, he’s drinking from a Big Gulp of Condescension and Arrogance.

      But did I really expect any different? No.

      1. ERIC ALTERMAN, AUTHOR, WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA

      2. Alterman is about as big prick as their is. He is the template from which people like Ackerman are made.

    4. These are delicious. “Post-ideological presidency.”

      SPENCER ACKERMAN: Let’s just throw Ledeen against a wall. Or, pace Dr. Alterman, throw him through a plate glass window. I’ll bet a little spot of violence would shut him right the fuck up, as with most bullies.

      MICHAEL HIRSH, NEWSWEEK: so many of you still seem tied down to your old ideological moorings. on the early evidence obama is not similarly tied down on any level, whether diplomatically or economically (or politically: note his big-tent approach to joe lieberman). a post-ideological presidency ? what a novelty, and what a relief! but this new obamian world view, i fear, also puts many of you who are part of this group in danger of imminent irrelevance. cheers, mike hirsh

      1. Ackerman is unbelievable. Is there anything that doesn’t cause him to advocate violence?

        1. And is there anyone less physically suited for violence?

          1. No. He couldn’t win a physical confrontation with the average 12 year old girl. He is really brings new meaning to the word pathetic.

          2. And is there anyone less physically suited for violence?

            For dishing it out? No.

            OTOH, he does strike me as an ideal candidate for taking it.

            1. You make a compelling point, RC.

          3. He looks like that little fem who was with the NEA trying to convince artists to be advocates of Obama’s policies via their art.

            1. You mean Yosi “Obama is my homeboy” Sergeant. And yeah he kind of does.

        2. John|7.21.10 @ 2:34PM|#

          Ackerman is unbelievable. Is there anything that doesn’t cause him to advocate violence?

          John|7.21.10 @ 2:43PM|#

          Me to. I assume he lives in Washington. I would love to know where his haunts are. I would love to give him some shit and video it and put it on youtube. Something tells me he wouldn’t take being made fun of in good humor.

          John|7.21.10 @ 2:53PM|#

          You just have to make sure you confront them in a small area with your back to the wall. Then you grab the first one and throw him back against the others. It is kind of like playing Incredible Hulk.

          1. Now that is a slap fight I’d pay to see…

            (cat fight? Whatever)

      2. I’d love to run into him in a bar some time. Mr. Tuff Gai would likely piss his pants at ‘BOO!’

        1. Me to. I assume he lives in Washington. I would love to know where his haunts are. I would love to give him some shit and video it and put it on youtube. Something tells me he wouldn’t take being made fun of in good humor.

          1. Careful John. He’s likely to have a posse of scrawny, foppish, liberal arts majors with him. If a couple hundred of them swarm all at once, they can do some damage.

            1. You just have to make sure you confront them in a small area with your back to the wall. Then you grab the first one and throw him back against the others. It is kind of like playing Incredible Hulk.

              1. Dude, you don’t even have to do that. All you have to is backhand the mouthiest one across the face, and they’ll all be too petrified by real-life violence to react.

                1. True. The rest would just piss their pants. The problem is they would whine to the cops.

    5. I totally missed this.

      SPENCER ACKERMAN: Let’s just throw Ledeen against a wall.

      Jesus do they not get the first against the wall reference or is this actually advocating it? Fuck me that’s spooky if the reference is in the context of revolution, and I can’t stand Ledeen.

      I mean hell I call for all kinds stupid shit, but I think (hope), most of it is taken as just hyperbole. This seems a little more than that.

      1. I suck at html…

      2. In a different time and place, Ackerman would be out cheering goons on as they break people’s heads. It is always the young self styled intelligentsia who buys into political violence as a solution. Reading Ackerman’s emails is kind of a window into a funny and pathetic American version of this.

      3. What John said. Ackerman would have made an excellent Chekist.

        1. I really try not to play a serious, “You are an evil bastard that would crush skulls card.”

          But that statement was fucking chilling and I’m not sure I can see any context that wouldn’t make it so.

          1. And take that with the other women’s comments about how she would roll on the floor laughing if she walked up on Rush Limbaugh dying of a heart attack. These people really seem to have a like of violence. I think creepy is a very good word.

            1. Keep in mind that there are people on this thread laughing that some asshole died.

              1. True. But even in threads about Congress critters, no one ever gets on here and says stupid shit like “slam his head through a window”. And everyone is just saying this guy sucked. They are not happy he is dead.

                1. I am, a little. But I’m like that. I smiled pretty big the morning I woke up to the news that Teddy Kennedy had died. Murtha too. The world improves incrementally.

              2. I’m not laughing at his death. I just refuse to give a dead man a pass on stupid shit he has said in the past. Or morn the passing of someone who would take liberties from anyone on the assumption that they are smarter, better, more intellectual, know what goes on…

                Do I feel for the loss of those that care for them, sure. I still don’t think dying gives you a pass for your past.

                1. “I still don’t think dying gives you a pass for your past.”

                  Nor do I.

            2. Bu if you look at pictures of these sadsacks, you can tell they would get the living shit kicked out of them (or worse)
              if they ever put their money where their mouthes are. I’ hope they try 🙂

              1. Totally. You couldn’t dream up people like this. No one would believe you.

            3. Scencer Napoleon Ackerman. Little man disorder if there ever was a case for it. Hey Ackers, you see that right bicep? That is where your scrawny little neck would be pinched off if you attempted to throw me against anything.

              http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/8195/3f011224.jpg

              1. Picture post time? Shit just got real.

                  1. Added bonus. That kitties name is GTMO. Since she has a habit of waterboarding her toys by putting them in her water bowl.

                    So don’t fuck with Death Kitteh GTMO.

                1. Lol! Shit just got real!

                  Never realized that Nick G and I have more than a casual resemblance:

                  https://reason.com/blog/2010/07…..-goes-vira

                  Makes me think those spic genes dad blessed me with might be nothing but once removed Roman ones.

    6. I didn’t realize there were so many black people in the media.

  15. Well, he died doing what he loved best: justifying the necessity of his solutions.

  16. Schneider has long been at the forefront of arguing for massive government intervention to address man-made global climate change.

    Don’t know the man, never heard of the man before today. But I will not mourn his passing in the slightest.

  17. “Those of us in science come from a completely different paradigm?much more likely in California, especially coastal California, and New York and the deep blue states?which I call doubt-test, where no matter how cherished our beliefs, if you have enough evidence kicking you in the face to the contrary, you change your mind.”

    yeah. I guess that is why so many of those “center leftists” he is talking about still maintain that Communism was a noble idea corrupted by misguided individuals. That guy must have created his own personal smug storm.

    1. And Keynesian economists, to cite just another example!

      1. Hey! Say what you will about AGW, but the multiplier fairies are real, dammit!

  18. Threadjack

    Gold Coin Sellers Angered by New Tax Law

    Those already outraged by the president’s health care legislation now have a new bone of contention — a scarcely noticed tack-on provision to the law that puts gold coin buyers and sellers under closer government scrutiny. …

  19. *smirks, wipes blood from tip of umbrella*

  20. “Those of us in science come from a completely different paradigm?much more likely in California, especially coastal California, and New York and the deep blue states?which I call doubt-test, where no matter how cherished our beliefs, if you have enough evidence kicking you in the face to the contrary, you change your mind.”

    Tell that to Dr. James Watson.

    1. Watson is a real jackass. And ironically enough him and Crick did not “discover DNA”. They just drew pretty pictures that caught the public’s imagination.

      1. Okay, no I have to dispute this.

        Watson IS a jackass. But Watson and Crick did figure out the correct structure of DNA. It was a race between them and Pauling, and Pauling was too addled with his correct deduction of alpha helices in proteins to figure it out.

        As for Hodgkins, smart as she may have been, she totally fits into the still-correct stereotype of crystallographers as a person who could figure things out but not figure out the big picture.

        1. I have always heard that there was another article in the famous 1953 Nature issue that said much of the same thing Watson and Crick did but didn’t have the pictures? And didn’t Chargrif and Avery figure out the relationship between DNA and genes in 1944? I have always been under the impression that Watson and Crick made less of a contribution than they are made out to have made.

          1. Easy enough to verify:

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v171/n4356/index.html

            There’s three papers in a row:

            Watson & Crick’s
            Wilkin’s
            Franklin’s

            The key to Watson and Crick is that they clearly delineate the base-pairing necessary, and its conjunction with the helical structure. This is not at all addressed in any of the other papers. It also, btw, explains the 1:1 ratio of As to Ts and Gs to Cs which till then was an unexplained result.

            1. They also point out that RNA would not have a similar structure, which is almost completely correct. (it can – sort of – for very short stretches, and also in conjunction with DNA, again, for very short stretches)

            2. Okay. Perhaps what I have been told is anti-watson propaganda.

          2. Read for yourself…I think Yonemoto covers the details

            http://www.nature.com/nature/j…..1738a0.pdf

            http://www.nature.com/nature/j…..1737a0.pdf

        2. Who’s Hodgkins? Do you mean Franklin?

          1. Yup.

            Well, an easy mistake to make. Both crystallographers, women, brits…

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Hodgkin

  21. “Scientists also create some of their own trouble because we’re a very snooty, elitist bunch, and we believe [in] a very high-knowledge entry barrier before you’re even entitled to have an opinion over technical issues.”

    For better or worse there’s a lot of truth in this. Brandybuck last week said I don’t know what CO2 is because I told her that CO2 in the stack is caused by the giant furnace before it. That boisterous ignorance is too common as anyone with expertise (or rudimentary knowledge in this case) of any field can attest.

    What this has to do with the statist/anti-statist or left/right divide escapes me.

  22. Isn’t he the guy who once said scientists had to strike a balance between being honest and being effective? Or was that some other douche?

  23. Perhaps we’re all reading that quote wrong. Maybe what he meant was:

    It’s because they have a particular belief system that is more likely embraced by Democrats:

    . . .

    we’re a very snooty, elitist bunch,

  24. Or, pace Dr. Alterman, throw him through a plate glass window.

    Is this a Man Who Fell to Earth reference?

  25. Or was that some other douche?

    Douches are, for the most part, fungible.

  26. Those of us in science come from a completely different paradigm?much more likely in California, especially coastal California, and New York and the deep blue states?which I call doubt-test, where no matter how cherished our beliefs, if you have enough evidence kicking you in the face to the contrary, you change your mind.

    ….where no matter how cherished our beliefs, if you have enough evidence kicking you in the face to the contrary, you change your mind.

    Yeah, that sounds just like a Democrat! Not only a warrior, but a comodian too.

    1. So, obviously, from the above comments, that jumped off the screen to most as well.

  27. Hot enough for you, Mr. Schneider?

  28. Limbaugh responds to the death wishes.
    It is pretty good.

    I can only surmise. I think most people on the left live in a world where merit is irrelevant. Theirs is a world in which connections, networking, kissing ass and obedient sameness are rewarded. I am the antithesis of all that. I am a legitimate, achieved and accomplished Number One and I’ve made it on my own and without them and without having followed their proscriptions. I think they are also jealous that I just sold my NY condo for a 125 percent profit while their homes are worthlessly underwater.

    Funny thing?.a number of my friends sent me the Daily Caller piece and the most shocking thing to them in the story was the advocacy of having government shut down Fox News. That the left wants me dead was not a big deal to them because it was nothing new to them. I think that’s hilarious. And about that: how about the LAW professor who thinks the FCC can pull Fox’s license? Fox does not have a license. The FCC does not grant Fox its right to exist. And this guy teaches law.

    And it is not just that they hate how I became who I am. They literally hate ME. They hate me because I am the most prominent, effective and unrelenting voice of conservatism and they have not been able to stop me. These people and their tactics are not new, we’ve seen them before in other countries and other times. They want to destroy contrary and opposition voices and views. They will climb over the law and the people to achieve their aims. Earlier in this administration, the president and his hacks targeted me, his party targeted me and their groups targeted me. They are all the same. They are leftists, disguised as lawyers, judges, scholars, professors, teachers, reporters, anchors, senators, representatives, legislative aids, congressional staff, federal bureaucrats, etc. There is NO Media. We know that now. There is just an incestuous relationship among all these various groups and a revolving door connecting them all.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer……z0uLa5KFww

  29. Well I hate Limbaugh because he’s a loud douche. I don’t want to see him dead though.

    1. But his response was pretty good.

  30. Somehow seemed relevant…
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j…..6441a.html

    1. A teaser:

      But they miss a crucial point: the ingrained assumption that scientific evidence is the only authority that can justify policy action ? scientism ? is what renders both policy and its supporting science vulnerable to the dogmatic amplification of doubt.

      1. Now THAT I agree with. Not only is scientism intellectually flawed, but it makes people attack science instead of scientism.

    2. The group did so by manipulating scientific uncertainty to undermine evidence that supported regulation.

      I’ll just stop the authors right there. Evidence doesn’t support regulation. Evidence supports a scientific theory. Regulation is not a fact that can be proven by observation.

      1. heller,

        I am sure the authors would agree with you, in part, as they are arguing for a clearer discussion, but….

        “Scientific theories” are not facts either in the strict sense you seem to be implying. It seems that “facts” and “evidence” are used to support “theories” or “regulations.” The kinds of evidence needed for support of each certainly differs, but I think you are missing the mark a bit here.

        1. Well there are two ways to interpret “evidence which supports regulation.”

          One is to say that evidence shows a threat exists and therefore we need to regulate the causes of the threat.

          The other is to say that evidence shows a regulation is doing what it is supposed to be doing.

          But neither of these types of evidence support regulation. They are merely facts, not justifications in themselves. Only political philosophy can truly “support regulation.” And political philosophy cannot be derived from science.

          1. I disagree with the “only” in your argument. Facts and evidence can serve as “justifications” for a policy decision. Those will always be interpreted in light of a political philosophy, but I don’t think that the facts are completely meaningless in the decision process. If it is only about philosophy, then you are at a dead-end; no fact can influence the decision and all regulations/laws/restrictions on liberty are equal.

            It seems to me political philosophy frames how facts will be interpreted and which kinds of facts can serve a valid role in “supporting” a regulation…but it is not enough to have idea/ideals without facts and evidence (i.e. a reality) to which they are applied.

            1. What I meant is that political philosophy is necessary for justifying policy. With only facts, you can’t.

              1. I agree.

  31. Reason commenters need to understand the difference between science and scientism as well as they understand the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

  32. Evidence doesn’t support regulation.

    Nicely played. It looks like the authors where assuming their conclusion.

    Its quite a leap from saying that “the evidence shows that activity X is not beneficial” to “we must kick down the doors of people engaging in activity X, shoot their dogs, take their assets, and throw them in jail.”

  33. RC,

    Are you referring to Wynne’s point or Oreskes & Conway’s?

  34. Its quite a leap from saying that “the evidence shows that activity X is not beneficial” to “we must kick down the doors of people engaging in activity X, shoot their dogs, take their assets, and throw them in jail.”

    Let’s follow that logic with a couple of changes:

    Its quite a leap from saying that “the evidence shows that activity X is clearly harmful to others” to “we must kick down the doors of people engaging in activity X, shoot their dogs, take their assets, and throw them in jail.”

    Is that a stronger argument or not?

    1. Neu Mejican, I have been saying the same thing for a while now.

  35. “not beneficial” just seems like weasel wording for “harmful”

    No? And we can always change ” shoot their dogs, take their assets, and throw them in jail” to “make them pay a moderate tax.”

    1. Global warming may indeed be harmful in a way that necessitates regulation (I’m not going to say that damn word). But smoking isn’t.

      1. Just for the sake of clarity, what is different about the harm caused by smoking and the harm caused by global warming that makes you decide differently about the degree to which they necessitate regulation?

        To start the discussion, the similarity between the two: an action puts out a pollutant that has a cumulative harmful effect on others.

        1. You don’t have to be around smoke.

          1. Particularly now that it is regulated in most work spaces and public places.

            ;^)

            1. You never had to be around dangerous levels. Most public places went non-smoking before any regulations. How is this the same as (hypothetically dangerous) AGW?

              1. As a drummer playing night-clubs regularly…I think I had to be around dangerous levels on a regular basis. I used to wake up with a smoker’s cough and I ain’t a smoker.

                For Old Mexican below. Quiet, the adults are talking.

                1. But back to Sidd…I was just trying to understand why you were making a distinction. I do now. I have no problem with your logic regarding the difference between the two.

                2. “As a drummer playing night-clubs regularly…I think I had to be around dangerous levels on a regular basis.”

                  No you didn’t.

                  Because you didn’t have to be a drummer playing night clubs.

                  Private property rights and freedom of contract take care of the smoking thing.

                  Don’t want to be around smoking? Then don’t take a job at a place that allows it.

                  1. Oh, but Sidd…I just have to play. Can’t resist. No choice in the matter.

                    – I understand your point. I disagree with it at the margins. No need to go further down this path.

        2. Re: Neu Mejican,

          Just for the sake of clarity, what is different about the harm caused by smoking and the harm caused by global warming that makes you decide differently about the degree to which they necessitate regulation?

          Your question is loaded. WHAT harm from “global warming”?

  36. One of the last pieces of Schneider’s legacy will be the creation of a “blacklist” of climate change skeptics that was published in a National Academy of Sciences article. Listing Schneider as an author allowed this list to pass through peer review. What kind of “balanced” scientist does that? It’s ironic that in creating an arbitrary ranking of every climate scientists credibility, he tarnished his own.

    1. Re: Maverick,

      What kind of “balanced” scientist does that?

      One with tenure – for Global Warming research. Turf protection, you see – even scientists can be true believers.

  37. The brave and the wise can both pity and excuse,when cowards and fools shew no mercy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.