After the recent post regarding the question and answer ejection of a journalist, Phelim McAleer, after asking a difficult question.
I received one response and a link:
"They tried to take the mic from McAleer when he refused to let another journalist take their turn. McAleer took over the press event. UN Security arrived only because of McAleer's aggressive behavior."
This is the video I was directed to watch:
Stephen Schneider: "...private communications that people have between each other certainly are not public documents..."
This was the response that was hard to understand during the McAleer Q&A video.
Of course, as the poster stated, McAleer interrupts as the questioning continues. I think Schneider does a great job here of trying to speak to the integrity of science and the scientific community as a whole.
There's an interesting job at McAleer by Schneider about a post on his website. I don't know the back story here, but McAleer has a track record of attacking the Global Warming alarmists.
See, the bantering takes new form at that point. However, even after the first comment, the handlers were already closing in on McAleer to pry the microphone away.
Now, Schneider does go right back and adequately attacks McAleer for having an agenda, which he does, but Schneider can leave with just a victory - he has to take a cheap jab and the melee continued.
This is one of Schneider's videos to understand his point of view:
I want to be clear as to why I posted the original blog: trying to counter the mainstream global warming crowd and you will be attacked, called names, etc...
Being skeptical (that man is to blame, that it can be stopped or reversed, that the last ten years are cooler, that thirty years ago cooling was a bigger concern) should NOT dictate this response or reaction.
Some scientists (and myself) question the simple assertion that their models are scientific valid and NOT just worse case scenarios that, in fact, are very unlikely and not as devastating as advertised. For example, best case scenarios are 1.5 degrees increase and 6-7 degrees are possible -- all the while dismissing the cooling over the last 10 years. Just not a good hypothesis.
McAleer's website: http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/home
Schneider is NOT a flip flopper as some portray because he predicted cooling, but this is because of a warming and pollutants that would block the sun. I've had trouble finding originals of his work.
One thing is for sure, we have a hard time coming together and discussing this.