Hmmm... Do you have a source for that quote (since I don't subscribe to Discover Magazine), preferably somewhere on the web. Maybe I'll ask Dr. Schneider about it tomorrow.

 

Here's the article where he tries to spin the statement by adding context. Doesn't succeed in my opinion.

http://home.att.net/~rpuchalsky/sci_...ote.html#quote

JonasM

 

Thanks. Good reading on the background of Dr. Schneider before I go hear him present his views on Global Climate Change.

 

Well Feb. was colder than normal here and so far April is too. Maybe I should buy some of these books on climate change. I could put them in my woodstove and get some use out of them.

 

I went to listen to Dr. Stephen Schneider speak on "The Science of Climate Change". Below are my interpretations of what I heard, nothing should be attributed to Dr. Schneider directly.

First, the reason the topic is called "Climate Change" is because no one really knows how it is going to change. It is like saying "the weather is going to change". "Climate Change" is a true-ism, no one can argue with that. People used to talk about "Global Warming", then "Global Cooling", but no one really knows whether it is warming or cooling, and it changes depending on which computer model you believe in, so to be generic, they just call it "Climate Change" now.

Second, he did not tell me anything I didn't already know. I knew the climate was changing before I listened to the talk. He showed lots of charts and graphs of the increase in "green house gases". He even correlated the increase with human activities. But (to me) he failed to correlate the increases with climate change. All they have are computer models, and if you tweak the models slightly, you can basically come to any conclusion you want.

Third, he did not offer any workable solutions. He ignored the key factors in trying to solve the Climate Change problem: Political, Economical, and Ecological. He (and the other Nobel Prize winner) tend to ignore the combination of these factors. He talked about how China and India should curtail their emissions, without talking about the political implication of finger pointing. To me, this is the major failure of the Kyoto accord. He also mentioned the need for "government incentives" (in the US), which to me sounded like a lot of hand-outs with no idea who is going to pay. He talked of more efficient automobiles and lower emission automobiles, but ignored the fact that if we all switch to buying Toyotas and Hondas, a lot of people in the US will be unemployed. The Ford F150 is still the number one selling "car" in the US, last I heard. He talked of alternative energy, without mentioning the impact on the environment for nuclear power or large solar fields. He did say using corn as alternative fuel does not make sense (presumably because it would lead to cutting down the forests to grow corn).

All in all, I was disappointed.

 

That's part of it, but the main thing to realize is that if 100% of the corn crop was converted to biofuel it would provide only about 12% of the current demand for oil. (This ignores the yet-unproven potential of using the celulose portions of the corn, like the stalks and husks.) So for a small reduction in oil consumption it would completely eliminate corn as a food crop. Not a very good idea.

 

That's a shame. I hate when that happens. I wonder, though ... does that mean you could have given the lecture instead?

[QUOTE=WhiteS2k,Apr 9 2008, 07:24 PM]But (to me) he failed to correlate the increases with climate change.

 

No, I could not give the lecture, nor do I want to. I don't know enough about the issue to present anything. But I did expect to learn something new in attending the talk. I didn't expect just another reiteration of the same rheterics.

But the model of the car was validated when a real car was built following the model and put on the road. So far, the Climate Change model has not been validated.

I was not expecting a magic solution, but I was expecting a more thought out presentation instead of repeating the same "sound bites" and simplistic solutions befitting politicians instead of scientists. I expected him to truthfully say "we don't have any workable solutions at this time" if that is the case. I expected more from a Nobel Prize winning scientific organization.

I don't have a pre-conceived stand on the issue, but I was hoping to learn more so I can formulate my own conclusions.