“The judge identified nine aspects of An Inconvenient Truth, nine core errors, where Al Gore either misstated the IPCC or prejudicially exaggerated what they found.” John Day is the lawyer for a British parent who sued the British Department
of Education when they tried to distribute An Inconvenient Truth to schools.
Stephen Schneider—Death of an Unrepentant Hypocrite
Written by Phelim McAleer   
Monday, 19 July 2010 16:49
SSStephen Schneider, a Global Warming scientist, has died. According to reports he suffered a heart attack whilst flying into London.

Professor Schneider's death is a shock and a tragedy for his family and we at Not Evil Just Wrong offer our condolences to his relatives for their personal loss. His death was sudden and must have come as a shock to his family and colleagues.  However, it has to be said that Professor Schneider died as he had lived—a completely unrepentant hypocrite.

Global Warming alarmists, of which Professor Schneider was one of the most prominent, all agree that aviation and flying is one the biggest causes of Global Warming—which they believe is going to wipe out hundreds of millions of lives and make large parts of the planet uninhabitable.

But just like Professor Schneider they fly and they fly and they fly. Often they will fly to conferences that come to the conclusion that others must not be allowed to fly.

Of course important people such as Professor Schneider must fly because they are doing an "important" job. But people from middle America, who work hard and want to go on vacation or to visit family they must be kept at home.

And the people of the developing world, they must forget about living in a modern economy burning fossils fuels or having a modern business infrastructure which involves airports and business flights. No—according to the late Professor Schneider and his colleagues they must continue to have a pre-industrial existence because industry will destroy the planet by causing Global Warming.

Of course the recent Global Warming scare is not the first time that Professor Schneider wanted to call a halt to the modern industrial world. In the 1970's Prof Schneider was one of the main Global cooling alarmists—he warned we were about to enter a new Ice Age and the only solution was to end industrial output.

Professor Schneider posed as an academic but hated tough questions and debate. He used Stanford's lawyers to try and censor our documentary when we interviewed him about his scientific flip-flopping. As a small film production company we had to remove his interview from our film. When I tried to push him further at the Copenhagen Climate Conference—he called an armed security guard to have our cameras switched off.

But that is not why I am breaking the long standing tradition of not speaking ill of the dead. I am a journalist and used to the powerful not wanting to answer awkward questions.

I am speaking strongly and truthfully about Professor Schneider because he was a hypocrite who wanted to deny the benefits of modernity to hundreds of millions across the globe whilst enjoying those benefits himself

Professor Stephen Schneider died at a relatively young age. He was just 65.

Perhaps if he had lived longer he would have come to realize just how the ideology, he pretended was science, would have destroyed the lives and hopes of hundreds millions in the developing and developed world.

Share this page on your favorite Social Websites...

Comments (12)add comment

KG said:

Amen! to that. Thanks for telling it like it is.
July 19, 2010
Votes: +10

Papertiger said:

Simple unflinching truth, This is the way to do it if you are forced by the circumstances of a persons life to speak ill of the dead.
No need for embelishments.

The timing of Schneider's demise, it coming on so suddenly after being featured at WUWT, makes me curious if he was plugged into a laptop on the plane, and what he might have been reading.
July 19, 2010
Votes: +5

Henry Galt said:

Worse than we thought
Funny how the Washington Post, along with absolutely zero mention of his decades of incontinence about global cooling, has:

"When somebody says 'I don't believe in global warming,' I ask, 'Do you believe in evidence? Do you believe in a preponderance of evidence?' "

I am soooo tired of waiting for this mythical beast.
July 19, 2010
Votes: +5

Jack Simmons said:

"When somebody says 'I don't believe in global warming,' I ask, 'Do you believe in evidence? Do you believe in a preponderance of evidence?' "

When somebody asks, "Do you believe in evidence?"

I say, "Yes, when it is made available. Unfortunately one needs a FOIA request to get anything out of climatologists."
July 19, 2010
Votes: +11

John Meech said:

Stephen Schneider's List
The recent list published by Professor Schneider that purports to show the number of scientists who have published on global warming and hold strong positive beliefs in AGW vs the number of scientists who do not support AGW is a troubling article (and web site).

Science is not done by consensus, yet high quality science is able to stand the tests of skeptical appraisal. I am scientist (an applied one) who is skeptical of the science of AGW. Neither have I published on the subject of global warming - yet. According to this list and Professor Schneider's interpretation of the list, I have virtually no standing with respect to the topic. Simply because the majority of "experts" apparently believe in some theory that does not make it a true theory - although there may be elements of the theory that have some partial validity. Cause and effect is often a difficult connection to prove. A simple correlation between two variables does not make for a causal relationship necessarily.

There are many, many unanswered questions about AGW that remain in the realm of uncertainty that even the proponents of AGW admit exists. The problem I have is that the proponents refuse to answer these questions in a concise and factual way. Instead we see "hand-waving" and ad-hominem statements of who is an expert and who is not. We are supposed to believe simply because the so-called experts say it is true.

People use the "precautionary principle" to push the debate into an examination of how we have to solve this so-called problem. Taxation and cap-and-trade policies dominate the current range of solutions. There appears to be an agenda to attempt to use this issue to transform our society from one that is wealthy to one that "shares" its wealth with those who are impoverished. In all cases where impoverished societies were simply given advantages, such sudden solutions have been squandered. In cases where societies were provided opportunities to "earn" their wealth through hard work and efforts, those societies have sustained themselves. Instead of spending so much of our meager resources on studying ways to address global-warming and to transfer wealth to the Third World, we would be much farther ahead to provide opportunities for the poor to build their economoies, create educational facilities, and to acquire health care resources.

We see both sides today talking about the same data set on "average global temperatures" (whatever that concept may be) - one si8de issuing statements every month that last month was the warmest June in history, or January was the fourth warmest January in history, etc., etc. and the other side plots the same data and showing that in fact for the past 15 yeats of so the change in average global temperature has been virtually nil (with possibly a very tiny positive slope. There is little question that temperatures have trended up around the world over the past 35 years of so and that we are currently in a peak situation from a historical perspective. But the deviation between where we are today and where the IPCC models predicted we would be is significantly large enough to suggest we should wait awhile before concluding unequivocally that AGW is real and significant.

These so-called models use what is called by the "experts" positive feedback loops that amplify the forcing ability of greenhouse gasses on their own. These parallel processes include the albedo effect (deforestation and polar ice-cap melting), together with cloud formation (from the most dominant GHG - water vapour). The uncertainty about cloud formation effects is so great that the current evidence (measured) is that this may be a self-correctly phenomena with a negative correlation not a positive one.

Keep up the pressure - it is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition and the way Galileo was treated by the Catholic Church.

Science is not religion.

I hope Professor Schneider will rest in peace, but I also hope that his death will not give cause to the proponents to use this opportunity to create prizes and memorials in his name to the so-called science of global warming.
July 20, 2010
Votes: +16

movielib said:

I started a series of threads on a Forum which would seem to have nothing to do with climate. But there is an area where you can talk about any subject you want. My global warming threads are on Part 9 and there have been a total now of more than 7,000 posts (more than half by me). Although I have been most critical of Schneider for years I have been reluctant to post much on his death as I don't see how I can except by being rather nasty.

I am tired though, of the ridiculous praise from the alarmists and of the "Professor Schneider and I disagree on many things but I always found him gracious or whatever" posts from skeptics when he clearly was not.

Mr McAleer, I thank you so much for your being able to post the truth. Your post is honest, eloquent and truthful while avoiding the much stronger language I feel about this guy who did a great deal of harm with his life. I am proud to post your words in my thread.
July 20, 2010
Votes: +7

yaosxx said:

Tell it like it is!
Good for you!
July 20, 2010
Votes: +2

Brian Williams said:

Would it be appropriate to say.....
.... that I find the news strangely cheering? I wonder how Phil Jones feels?
July 20, 2010
Votes: +2

Ecotretas said:

A journalist tells the news as it is...
Keep on the good work!

July 21, 2010
Votes: +1

Keith Battye said:

It is vexingly difficult to come up with anything positive about a man who has relentlessly pursued strategies to bring down our painstakingly built civilization by using diametrically opposed trends when it suits him.

He is not a scientist but a slippery and corrupt politician. He wishes to engage the planet Earth, our only home, in a gigantic experiment in social engineering. The replacement of technological progress with regression to a pre-industrial condition. That it will kill millions, if not billions, is a matter of supreme unconcern to him he just "believes" he is correct.

Do not mourn for him, he will be replaced by others of his ilk and we will have to fight tooth and nail to bring our world back into equilibrium. The future is not secure thanks to the likes of Schneider and we all need to do our bit.
July 21, 2010
Votes: +2

matt said:

Death of an alarmist fear mongering lying hypocrit
Lets also not forget that he stated that tructh has to balanced against effectiveness. An open admission of lying to get an alarmist story accross.

He alsio stated there is no safe level of CO2. THis is absoloute bunkum since withoiut CO2 we would all be dead. CLearly, he was a fool, not a scientist. And an alarmist, lying, hypocriticla fool at that.

He was also a shameless self promoter, whose only interest was being famous, publishing over 400 books, changing his science as the mood of the day suited to acchieve this.

He was a fraud. a liar, and a cheat, and the only honest thing he has done is to remove his personal carbon foot print from the earth.
July 22, 2010
Votes: +2

Owen Mc Guire said:

Am I the only person on the left that thinks climate change is bullshit?
Hello from Donegal,Ireland.Politically I am way to the left, but i honestly think that this climate change lark is a load of bullshit. Looking forward to more from you guys. This is the new FACISIM. A lie dressed up as an urgent, righteous call to arms. It looks like Gorbels had many students. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to saftey, by menacing it with an endless series of hoboglins, all of them imaginary" HL Menkin
July 30, 2010
Votes: +0

Write comment