«

»

Jan
20

Stephen Schneider: Climate Science and Media Distortion

Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 — July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director a…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

25 comments

No ping yet

  1. Hasan Mohammad says:

    Brought tears to my eyes. RIP Steve and long live the earth!?

  2. SGlitz says:

    See 70’s Schneider vs Modern Schneider. Very Funny.
    http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/?

  3. Wolfie Rankin says:

    Via @350?

  4. Jan Galkowski says:

    Completely awesome. Concise. Powerful.?

  5. Yumiko Sakura says:

    Made by someone who I like so much.?

  6. Steven Mann says:

    ?

  7. John Ky says:

    In the end, it does come down to a value judgement. Let’s hope the world is
    able to make the right choice.?

  8. dwolfcoach says:

    The morale of this story is that your “calculations” of 100 years to
    “adapt” to sea level rise is flawed and morally inept. 1st, you have no
    right to claim that you know this. The honest answer is that no one knows
    exactly how these mechanisms will manifest themselves on our global
    populations. 2nd, if you can explain how migrations of all species, inc.
    humans, will impact environments, I await your dissertation. 3rd, access to
    clean drink water WILL affect many populations adversely!

  9. NanoSparkNanoCore says:

    U say THEY expect. On what basis do THEY expect? U don’t think deep enough!
    Think of a murder case in court. First question they ask? MOTIF? Did he
    have a motif to kill? Could ‘climate scientists’ (who used to merely
    predict the weather) have MOTIF for spreading panic? YES! The more panic
    they create, the more funding they get, higher salary, nicer office, more
    recognition, press articles with their names, etc. The truth is that it is
    not as urgent or big a problem as THEY want you to believe!

  10. mphello says:

    Awesome editing by Plomomedia! Awesome lecture by Schneider!

  11. NanoSparkNanoCore says:

    Google: “climate science: a sensitive matter”, first sentence and graph.

  12. Chris Johnson says:

    Its not that distorted.

  13. Arne Perschel says:

    Bravo, Ste!

  14. MrCoffeeFiend says:

    You still have not shown any study that gives a time length for the
    transport of the melt water of all of Greenland to the ocean. This is my
    core point and one you have refused to address. Unless you can state a
    study that claims that a 3 km block of ice that is about 500 km wide is
    going to move 600 km you are just throwing up distractions.

  15. stau ffap says:

    Ok, first thing i notice is that James Hansen has probably been misquoted.
    It already starts badly for the article. And yup he has. The name of the
    article with Hansens quote is “Global Temperature update 2012”. You can
    find the quote in the 4th line of the paper. You should read the whole
    article.

  16. petegiant says:

    That is a fair description of your comment.

  17. jan angevine says:

    His presentation of the medical model of problem solving using an illness
    like cancer, which is usually a complicated matrix of variables, helps to
    demonstrate the difficulty of simply offering a “yes” or “no” answer to
    climate change. Also, suggesting that all opinions have the same weight
    really undermines the importance of climate scientist’s work. There is no
    disagreement about climate change. The question is what are we going to do
    about it. How are we going to deal with a cancer?

  18. dwolfcoach says:

    Your allegiance to that ancient book is baffling to me. But, as long as
    you’re interested in a solution to this I’m on your side.

  19. MrCoffeeFiend says:

    That’s right. Deny hard science in favor of anecdotal evidence. Go on
    believing that a Semi can fit through the eye of a needle. We are better of
    preparing for the sea rise over time, because it cannot be stopped, instead
    of trying to stop it, which is impossible. The bottom line is that we will
    not have a sudden rise in sea level do to the melting of the Greenland
    glaciers. It will be a slow rise that can be adapted to unless the world
    economy is destroyed first.

  20. NanoSparkNanoCore says:

    First: Climate is not really a ‘science’. The only thing we know is that
    over the last 100 years the Temp changed by 0.8 degrees. ALL the rest is
    theory, unverifiable by experiment. Second, what did the established
    scientists do to people like Darwin, or Einstein? Real breakthrough is
    almost always made outside the establishment science. The institute
    director raking in 300 grand a year spreading panic is part of the
    establishment of course cheating the taxpayer pretending to solve a problem.

  21. NanoSparkNanoCore says:

    U may pick this up more once you have a job and make money, having a large
    part of it forcibly taken from you (tax), funding lots of things u don’t
    agree with. Virtually all the people who make panic about climate change
    are somehow benefiting from the tax money that is forcibly taken from
    productive people by the government. Recommend this one:
    watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc to get u started, as a college student u are probably
    surrounded by socialist academics, I hope u appreciate a different
    viewpoint.

  22. dwolfcoach says:

    Our results link changes in glacier velocity directly to calving-front
    behavior at Greenland’s largest outlet glaciers, on timescales as short as
    minutes to hours, and clarify the mechanism by which glacial earthquakes
    occur. Citation: Nettles, M., et al. (2008), Step-wise changes in glacier
    flow speed coincide with calving and glacial earthquakes at Helheim
    Glacier, Greenland, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L24503, doi:
    10.1029/2008GL036127.

  23. Ratboy2004 says:

    Excellent video, thank you.

  24. MrCoffeeFiend says:

    They would not be obsolete. The coastal drainage is the known constraint on
    the time required. Melting ice further inland con only slow it down more,
    not speed it up. I did learn something new. It is just that the new
    information confirms my position that the time for drainage would be over
    100 years. You have yet to show a dirrect flaw in my estimate and yes it is
    an estimate.

  25. John Carraway says:

    Absurd and ridiculous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>