About biased views about climate change. Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University.
"I can speak for myself that's exactly what I do. But I can also tell you, and so do most of the colleagues I respect, not everybody, there ar people who understate and there are people who overstate. The other problem is don't forget the media filter. Media gets end of the world versus good-for-you-botched extremes. Like it's a trial, we have guilt and we have innocence and they'll set that frame. So if a scientist is speaking in a bell curve right, and you'll allow some probability of a really nasty outcome, and some probability of a beneficial outcomes, and every speech I give .. go on Youtube, you'll find them, you'll see I do this .. up I've no control about the fact that because I've concern about the more serious areas, and I do, I don't want us to fall into that trap, I don't 10 percent risks. With planetary lab support systems. That's my personal view. That's my personal values. And I always say that. The point though, as if it's the reported, that I believe that's certain that's going to be in the worst case, that's a misframing of what I've said. Just as when I'm arguing with other people who're more conservative and they allow a small probability that they think I'm right, and they've a larger probability that things are milder, and then they get boxed in to the frame that they only think that's mild, that's not fait to them either. It's because when you go through the filter of this kind of advocacy end of the world and good for you, which in every speech again, go look it up on Youtube, you'll see me, I say the two lowest probability outcomes. That's a very bad way to convey the nature of meaning, because all it can do is confuse and create the polarization, that has led those of you who've gotten the hate mails from getting them because people get locked in to those polarizations."
Head of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Gina McCarthy.
did not know the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, information that is fundamental to the EPA’s regulations, at a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing titled “Examining EPA’s Regulatory Overreach” which examined
the scientific justifications for EPA’s rules and how they impact the
lives of the American people. One of the rules in question was the Clean
Power Plan, announced on June 2, 2014, which would require that states meet requirements for limiting carbon emissions.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) asked McCarthy, “What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?”
“What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? I don’t have that calculation for you sir,” said McCarthy.
“Maybe you could tell us what your personal guess is on what percentage CO2 is,” said the congressman.
“I don’t make those guesses sir,” McCarthy said.
“You’re the head of the EPA and you don’t know—you’ve based all of
these laws based on—oh you’re going to get your staffer to tell you
now,” said Rohrabacher. “But you’re the head of the EPA and you did not
know what percentage and now are basing policies that impact
dramatically on the American people and you didn’t even know what the
content of CO2 in the atmosphere was, which is the justification for the
very policies you’re talking about.”
“No that isn’t—if you’re asking me how much CO2 is in the atmosphere,
not a percentage but how much we have just reached levels of 400 parts
per million,” McCarthy read from her notes.
“I was very clear in what I was asking and it was very clear you
didn’t know,” said Rohrabacher. The congressman went on to explain that
from his understanding CO2 is “only one half of one tenth of one percent
of the atmosphere” and “only ten percent of that is actually man made.”
“Of course whatever you’re suggesting and is being suggested as the
basis for creating these—what we consider draconian controls—is that one
tenth that is man made of the one half of the one percent, that that
will have an impact on the weather to the point that it will actually
impact peoples health,” he said.
Proponents of the Clean Power Plan argue that it is a “commonsense plan”
that will improve the health of the American people and the
environment. The EPA says, “this proposal will maintain an affordable,
reliable energy system, while cutting pollution and protecting our
health and environment now and for future generations.”
Opponents of the plan, such as Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) who chaired the hearing, call it a “power grab” and say it gives “government more control over Americans’ daily lives.”
“These regulations stifle economic growth, destroy American jobs, and
increase energy prices,” said Smith. “That means everything will cost
more—from electricity to gasoline to food, which disproportionately
hurts low income Americans.”
“Even EPA data shows that this regulation would reduce sea level rise
by only 1/100th of an inch, the thickness of three sheets of paper,” he
added. “This rule represents massive costs without significant
benefits. In other words, it’s all pain and no gain.”