Friday, 19 December 2014

Stephen Schneider, the liar, admits the truth. You can't measure the climate properly.

One of the good number of scientists and politicians who openly admitted global warming was a tool being used to unite mankind against themselves in order to impose drastic measures to restrict power, movement and wealth, was Stephen Schneider. He was the one with Margaret Mead's Endangered Atmosphere conference (when they said we were heading for an ice age) they needed to create scary scenarios to make the people ask for a change, which they had already wanted to create but needed the reason. Imagine my surprise when looking for that quote, to see one of the three leading figures in original global warming history (along with Mann and Hansen) provide this 2002 quote:

In a January 2002 Scientific American article Schneider wrote:

"I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming"

Almost totally contradicting his previous public media statements (he was one of the most catastrophic prophets of doom on the planet, now replaced by his second in line David Suzuki, who describes humans as maggots eating their own waste), he slipped in (as is inevitable if you wait long enough) a quote of the truth, and is worth a million lies from the same person, whose entire recent career was admitted to be based on them.

"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."

Too late Stevie, you did mention the doubts you said they musn't, as you had them, and as only they were real and not your pretence they didn't exist, despite your greatest efforts, they came out, and in writing.
He admitted, along with Margaret Mead, Henry Kissinger and Mike Hulme, that the cause was greater than the truth. That is the entire foundation of global warming, adjustments, man made models, predictions and the rewriting of thousands of years of climate records, proven by the originals used in textbooks for decades. It is easy to fake science as only scientists can prove it has been faked, who tend to protect their fellow peers by the usual balance of threats and emoluments. But wait long enough and even the lowest of the low scum slip out what they really mean, whether in private via Climategate, or less frequently in an open interview.
Make no mistake, this was one of the three most influential scientists on earth promoting the cause of saving the planet from global warming. Long before the internet he worked on a public profile knowing his earlier quotes would be almost impossible to turn up, and by the time they did they carried so little weight against the decades of spin, it didn't really matter. But the truth catches up with everyone sooner or later, and contradicting himself just once is worth every single lie he told in his lifetime (he admitted it, this is not my opinion), and he admitted himself in a single sentence of confession HE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW AS THE SCIENCE WASN'T SOLID ENOUGH TO RELY ON.



No comments:

Post a Comment