Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Steve Schneider's Climate View - NYTimes.com
The Stephen H. Schneider Symposium, being held in late August in Boulder, Colo., will reflect on his approach to the climate problem and culminate with a session on this question: “The challenge of climate change mitigation and adaptation: How do we translate sound climate science into sound policies?”
In Tribute of Stephen Schneider » The 2011 Stephen H. Schneider Symposium, Aug 24-27, Boulder
AGENDA [speakers include Santer and Oreskes and Romm and Oppenheimer and Teresa Heinz-Kerry, Oh my]


Bob Armstrong said...

What a giggle .

Colin M Henderson said...

"How do we translate sound climate science into sound policies?” Good question, we seem to be good at translating unsound science into unsound policy.

Anonymous said...

Remember that hilarious paper - the "The Answer is Blowing in the Wind" paper, where he claimed to have discovered all the world's thermometers are broken and that no one else can tell it, and that he wrote a paper on his laptop that - surprise, surprise -

overthrew all law of instrumentation,

and that now, we'll all be using his method of temperature determination instead of satellites, THERMOMETERS, and that his method determines TEMPERATURE derived from WIND SPEED?

What a complete fraud with a capital complete fraud. He should have been stripped from all academic credentials after he couldn't explain how he was "deriving temperature from wind speed" more accurately than the thermal sensors on the President's airplane.

Anonymous said...

Yea, I was watching the "sound science" part and was thinking, "the answer to that is, 'When they get some sound science."

You are talking to people who can not have it explained to them that if there was even any Green House Gas Effect AT ALL the infra red telescopy field, AND the optical telescopy field, would have LONG SINCE been screaming bloody murder about the ever increasing atmospheric infra red destroying their viewing in the first case and raising distortion levels - the Atmospheric Scintillation called the STARS TWINKLING -

the definition of heat on gas of course BEING motion - the optical guys would be screaming too, about "look at these photos through the decades as ATMOSPHERIC HEAT which MUST translate into more atmospheric MOTION -

decreases the viewing and number of days per year OF viewing as atmospheric motion climbs inexorably with ever rising manmade gas input" ...

These are the people who you tried to explain that photons try to escape UP in gravity.
And that for them to climb DOWN, the polarity of the gravitational force would have to be reversed.

It's just pathetic.

Everybody even peripherally associated with this knows the definition of heat on gas is motion.

With more heat on the gases of the atmosphere there must be more motion. Period. Not maybe or on Tuesdays, PERIOD.

More motion
more Atmospheric Scintillation.

More vigorous STARS twinkling over these anti-science twinks' heads.