Stephen H. Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change, at Stanford University, is an opinion leader in the Global Warming alarmist camp. His earlier research conclusions suggested that human activities may contribute to an Ice Age in the near future. Some Global Warming indifferentists have jumped on Schneider's about-face. I don't see anything wrong with changing one's opinion, in the light of new evidence. However I do take issue with another of Schneider's pronouncements.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." ([i]Discover, [/i] pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989)
Yes, Schneider is saying that it's OK to dumb down for the benefit of the Great Unwashed. But he's also saying that it's OK to be dishonest, in the sense of sexing up the data. Sexing up science news is nothing new; it happens all the time, with or without Schneider. This is one of several reasons why so much popularized science reporting is garbage. I have a big problem with this kind of scientific dishonesty, and with Schneider's endorsement of it.
As an historical reminder, the Bushies and the Blairies sexed up the data from intelligence reports on the Middle East, in order to drag us into the Iraq War. True, signing on the dotted line of the Kyoto Protocol, on the basis of scientific fraud, would not be an unmitigated disaster, like the Iraq War. But I believe that in our democracy, both Congress and the public have a sacred right to freedom from deliberate disinformation from our government and from people who call themselves scientists.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." ([i]Discover, [/i] pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989)
Yes, Schneider is saying that it's OK to dumb down for the benefit of the Great Unwashed. But he's also saying that it's OK to be dishonest, in the sense of sexing up the data. Sexing up science news is nothing new; it happens all the time, with or without Schneider. This is one of several reasons why so much popularized science reporting is garbage. I have a big problem with this kind of scientific dishonesty, and with Schneider's endorsement of it.
As an historical reminder, the Bushies and the Blairies sexed up the data from intelligence reports on the Middle East, in order to drag us into the Iraq War. True, signing on the dotted line of the Kyoto Protocol, on the basis of scientific fraud, would not be an unmitigated disaster, like the Iraq War. But I believe that in our democracy, both Congress and the public have a sacred right to freedom from deliberate disinformation from our government and from people who call themselves scientists.
