Climate scientist wants public to consider climate change like court case

Stanford biologist Stephen Schneider, one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, wants to help the American public put the science on climate change into a context they can understand.

He spoke Thursday night to several hundred members of the American Society of Environmental Historians at the Basque Center in Boise, appealing to them and anyone to help make the complex subject easier to fit into their own personal decisionmaking.

He comes at it like a legal case. Is the jury still out on climate change?

Look at it like a criminal case. The jury must weigh the evidence and decide a person’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. What does that mean? Schneider asks rhetorically. There is no number that can be put to reasonable doubt.

The more than 2000 scientists who wrote the IPCC report said it is very likely climate change is changing the planet, driven by human activity, and they put a number to their balance of uncertainty, 90 percent certain.

If we were talking about a civil case, Schneider said, the jury only must decide that there is preponderance of evidence supporting one side or the other – 50 percent.

His point is that part of the debate should end. The debate should shift to how to manage the risks to people and society from climate change and how to both figure out how much needs to be done and then how to figure out how to share the burden equitably.

Is the jury still out on climate change?

Mr. Schneider's desire to view global warming as a criminal court case is nonsense. First off, in a court case "evidence" is presented not assumptions and to date there has been zero evidence presented that implicates man in climate change, only assumptions and theories based on limited data and most of that data suspect. The only thing so called climate scientists want to offer are computer models that leave out the impacts of water vapor, that's like Nifong leaving out the DNA evidence in the Duke rape case.

Two days ago it was mostly sunny and in the 50s...

now it's mid-40s, scattered showers and wind chill that makes it a bit nippy.

When you are either 50 feet underwater or dry as bone china I will look back and exclaim how that jack--- must have been right!

It's sort of ironic

It's sort of ironic considering the founder of the Weather Channel John Coleman has been in the news for several days now saying Al Gore should be sued for fraud. I'm thrilled to see that there might actually be a debate on this instead of just asking us to walk off a cliff. The 1 degree of warming that took place over the last 25 years was wiped out in one year by a 1 degree drop in global tempatures. By the way Al Gores prediction that after a horrible hurricane season in 2005? never came true. We've had very few since and none major. Al Gore is an idiot propped up by issues the left believes in.

If we can sell them more crap, it's not a total waste.

Yep. Us idiot lefties have

Yep. Us idiot lefties have conspired to hire Al Gore to hoodwink the world on issues we believe in.

Like the health of our planet, the future of our environment and dumb stuff like whether our great-great-grandchildren will need to develop webbed feet.

But you righties just keep to your agenda. NO GAY MARRIAGE!

For the doubting Thomas's here...what does it cost you to make changes to lessen your own impact on the environment? What do you stand to lose if Gore and the majority of the scientific community are wrong? I can think of a few side effects: cleaner air, cleaner water, decreased reliance on petroleum fuels, etc. I just don't understand why the thought of those particular side effects bothers some people.

The FOUNDER of the weather channel is an authority on global climate change? You mean a weathercaster should be trusted over the consensus of the scientific community? Weird.

consensus

So you are saying that we should believe the UN and ignore the hundreds of other scientists that say human caused global warming is a hoax. As for what it will cost ... it will cost billions of dollars and millions of deaths due to starvation and disease.

Look at it this way,

2-4 billion deceased humans kinda makes all the arguments around here retarded, don't it?

Bunch of stubborn folk aren't we.

Mikel, I'm interested in where

you get your figures. Why would there be a cost of billions of dollars and millions of deaths if we quit spewing pollutants into the earth's atmosphere?

I didn't say anything about the UN, and am unclear as to what they have to do with this argument. I do think that the opinions of thousands of scientists who believe that man definitely is contributing to accelerated warming of our planet should carry a bit of weight against the "hundreds" of scientists you cite.

Coultergeist

You seem to have two questions, lets start with the easy one first;
The climate scientists you wish to quote are the ones on the UN IPCC, thats "UN" IPCC. The scientists I wish to listen to are the ones the "UN" prevented from being a part of their, thats the UN's, report on climate change. Many of these scientists were initially part of the process but quit the panel because the more they studied the findings the more doubt was created, or they were refused positions on the panel because of their previously published, peer reviewed, papers that did not agree with the party line the "UN" wished to promote. I often read of peoples "outrage" that Bush has censored scientists but no one complaining about the "UN" cherry-picking scientist to support their "blame America first" agenda.
Now the second question.
Why the costs of billions of dollars and millions of lives? Well, the current crop of global warming fanatics are all up in arms about CO2, which is a naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere, which humans are spewing wantonly into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates. Their targets in this crusade are the "evil" fossil fuels, and the only way to prevent mankind from destroying the earth is to stop the use of fossil fuels. Without these fuels there will be no way to harvest food or to transport that food to the millions of people all over the world that the US, not UN, feed everyday. Also most of our electricity is currently generated by burning fossil fuels, you can blame that on the anti-nuclear environmentalists that now want us to stop fossil fuel use, and therefore there will be no electricity to preserve the food that we do manage to have.

Yes, it’s all a conspiracy

Yes, it’s all a conspiracy by the evil U.N. oil-for-sex racket, also known as the IPCC, to stifle the comments of brave maverick scientists, whose only concern is for the truth. They’ll be showing up any day in your home town in their black helicopters to impound your SUVs and your guns. Any scientists caught secretly harboring doubts about man-made global warming will be sent off to labor camps to “remediate” sea level rise with buckets and water balloons. Once again, poor honest conservatives are being oppressed by evil elitist intellectuals who drink French wine and hold socialist views. Did I leave out any favorite conservative shibboleths? Sorry, I couldn’t find a way to work Bill Clinton in there.

We all have our opinions. But the real debate should be occurring in the scientific community. For my own personal part, I wish that global warming were not a problem. I’d rather not have to worry about it. However, it seems to me that the facts are predominantly on the side of the scientific debate that contends that it is a problem, and that it’s going to continue to get worse. I wish it weren’t so, but I can’t BS myself and pretend that everything’s fine. If a serious body of work were to be gathered that proved the IPCC wrong, and if it were accepted in legitimate scientific circles, I would actually be glad about it. But it hasn’t happened, and doesn’t seem likely to.

Hundreds?

I highly doubt there are even 100 real scientists in the world that are calling it a hoax. Not a single peer-reviewed article on global warming has debated that it's not happening. It's only the media, written and reported by people who have no background in any kind of science, that call it into question...and that's simply because it's their job to report two sides, regardless if there actually are two sides! If you look closely at these debating "scientists", you'll find that all of them are tied to oil companies or other big businesses that would be affected by any policy changes to curb global warming. They are being paid to say there's nothing wrong...and that it will be harmful for us to do anything about it. Those aren't scientists, they are mouth pieces.

Wait for them to kill you for your carbon footprint...

and then call you ecotraitors, geoguerillas, coal cowards, nuclear nimrods and earth molesters.

I can hope the late comrade doesn't seem like Saint Che...

Nope, just good at selling ads and negotiating coverage.

Ruh Roh, FO

You're starting to answer your own posts. Slow day?

No, y'all stuck eleventy posts inbetween. Line the boxes up!

I guess dots and 32 Crayolas could help the site some.

Global Warming "Consensus"

Here is a growing list of over 400 prominent scientists (most with PhD's) who dispute man-made global warming. The list comes to us courtesy of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

In the 70's it was global cooling. The 80's brought us the ozone hole hysteria. In the 90's we were all going to die from acid rain. Now, global warming. Global warming is nothing more than the left's latest vehicle to gain control over other peoples' lives.

And most tied to oil and coal

Just a few people from this report, and who they are paid by:

Gerd Weber, Germany(Association of German coal producers)

Craig Idso, US(founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, funded by Western Fuels and Exxon Mobil)

Richard Courtney, UK(Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry), was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management)