Castanet

I've been reading some of the AGW threads and Schneider's name keeps coming up. He didn't manipulate anyone, he was trying to express his dislike of the sound-bite process where scientists have to quickly explain things to non-scientific people.

https://www.metabunk.org/climate-scientist-says-scientists-should-consider-stretching-the-truth-stephen-schneider.t6850/

Rebuttals of this claim by Stephen Schneider:

Before Stephen Schneider passed away in 2010 he wrote several rebuttals to these accusations. In general he explained the topic of the Discovery interview the quote comes from, which was the problem scientists face in media with limited time slots available to discuss complex scientific issues. Most often the last line(s) of his quote is omitted.
The last lines being:
"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"

This seems to be regarded as the best source for the entire quote:

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 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 climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means 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.

https://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the ... der-quote/
How is it not manipulative?

His eulogy, from the same site:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... schneider/

From Stanford University, headline and subhead:

Stephen Schneider, a leading climate expert, dead at 65
Schneider was influential in the public debate over climate change and a lead scientist on the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/jul ... 71910.html

His bio:
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/R ... raphy.html

His extraordinary influence as a political activist is undeniable.

Schneider himself was proud of this, and he did not seem to understand why this presented such a problem for those of us who simply want the truth.

Many people who insist we should rely solely on science, pure science alone, and what the climate scientists say (a stance I very much agree with) choose to ignore how the climate science they have relied on has been badly tainted by political activism.

We who are not climate scientists must rely on what we are told by scientists. When we know for certain what we have been told has been intentionally slanted to generate media attention, do we still trust the scientists presenting us with the data? Do we still insist "this is pure science"?

When we see how other very highly regarded climate scientists are treated as heretics simply for publicly questioning what is presented by the activist scientists (and bearing in mind that questioning has, since the end of the dark ages, been considered vital to good science), do we still insist "the activist-scientists' supported consensus represents pure science"?

As doomsday predictions fail to materialize, as it becomes clear to all of us the models activist-scientists have used to raise the alarm were based (whether intentionally or simply in error) on erroneous data compounded by cumulative effect, do we still trust the data being presented by "the consensus"?

Dr. Stephen Schneider's activism made it impossible for us to tell whether he was presenting us with pure science, or with scientific data intentionally slanted for activist purposes.

It seems to me the only sensible course of action for those of us who are not climate scientists now is to take a step back, take a deep breath, try to let go of our biases, and re-approach the issue with a clear mind.

rustled wrote:It seems to me the only sensible course of action for those of us who are not climate scientists now is to take a step back, take a deep breath, try to let go of our biases, and re-approach the issue with a clear mind.

Or, just throwing this out there, or people could read some of the thousands of climate studies out there and see that this is a massive problem and that nearly 100 percent of climate scientists agree that it is. No one has to rely on sound-bites from news programs, go read the actual science.

carcarson31 wrote:

rustled wrote:It seems to me the only sensible course of action for those of us who are not climate scientists now is to take a step back, take a deep breath, try to let go of our biases, and re-approach the issue with a clear mind.

Or, just throwing this out there, or people could read some of the thousands of climate studies out there and see that this is a massive problem and that nearly 100 percent of climate scientists agree that it is. No one has to rely on sound-bites from news programs, go read the actual science.

Would you be able to point me to a source of the actual science that you know, for certain, is free from Schneider's influence?

If so, would you be confident that either of us could read it without bias, and understand it correctly?

rustled wrote:
Would you be able to point me to a source of the actual science that you know, for certain, is free from Schneider's influence?

How do you propose I check such a thing? Call the scientist and directly ask of he was manipulated by Schneider? I highly recommend starting at Nasa's website and yes I think any reasonably intelligent adult can understand the majority of the studies especially when coupled with some further googling for term and other clarifications.

carcarson31 wrote:

rustled wrote:
Would you be able to point me to a source of the actual science that you know, for certain, is free from Schneider's influence?

How do you propose I check such a thing? Call the scientist and directly ask of he was manipulated by Schneider? I highly recommend starting at Nasa's website and yes I think any reasonably intelligent adult can understand the majority of the studies especially when coupled with some further googling for term and other clarifications.

How indeed? Therein lies the problem. Given the scope of Schneider's influence over the past three decades, I don't think we can assume he had no influence on what's available on NASA.

It's interesting to me you feel you would be able to understand the majority of the studies. I certainly wouldn't think I'd be able to interpret the results myself. I'd have to rely on what's presented. And as we have seen, for the past three decades the results of climate change studies have been presented in a particular way. It's not just the facts.

When a legitimate and well-regarded scientist disagrees with or so much as questions the slant, that scientist is dismissed as a heretic. This does not inspire confidence in the science presented by the consensus.

I can tell when a prediction has not come to pass, and I can see quite clearly where mistakes in data input have resulted in compounded cumulative errors in projections. I can often tell when a story is intentionally manipulative, as we see with the current "news" out of Greenland, and a few months ago when alarming headlines assured us Canada was warming twice as fast as the global average (as was the case, of course, with every other land mass).

But how do we know when the IPCC or NASA or any consensus source is reporting their findings to us with scary scenarios and dramatic statements while withholding their doubts, as Schneider described, and when they are simply giving us the plain truth without any scary slant? I can't always tell. Can you?

Do you begin to see the problem?

I do see a problem with rejecting settled science because of a controversial and often completely misrepresented statement some scientist made years and years ago that he later clarified and corrected.

carcarson31 wrote:I do see a problem with rejecting settled science because of a controversial and often completely misrepresented statement some scientist made years and years ago that he later clarified and corrected.

Pointing out that climate science has, for three decades, been consistently presented in a skewed fashion intended to ramp up alarm and manipulate people into taking certain actions is not at all the same thing as rejecting science.

No rational person can credibly dismiss Dr. Stephen Schneider as "some scientist".

No rational person can look at his statement, his clarifications, his corrections and his lobbying, and convincingly argue "Dr. Stephen Scheider had not crossed the line from presenting pure unvarnished science to political activism."

No rational person can pretend Dr. Stephen Schneider was not directly involved with convincing people the science is "settled".

No rational person can ignore the problem with respected scientists denouncing (and vilifying) other respected scientists who disagree with (or merely question) the way the "settled" science has been presented.

Do you begin to see the problem?

Will you allow yourself to consider the possibility we have been unnecessarily alarmed? And will you allow yourself to consider the possibility we have, in our alarm, not made the best choices? That we may have caused unnecessary harm?

Will you allow yourself to consider the possibility we have been unnecessarily alarmed? And will you allow yourself to consider the possibility we have, in our alarm, not made the best choices? That we may have caused unnecessary harm?

Sorry I don't buy into conspiracy theories. Here's a great Stephen Schneider video that is easy to understand but it's just over an hour long. It might help some people who feel they can't understand the wording of studies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfR3MQAloXI

carcarson31 wrote:

Will you allow yourself to consider the possibility we have been unnecessarily alarmed? And will you allow yourself to consider the possibility we have, in our alarm, not made the best choices? That we may have caused unnecessary harm?

Sorry I don't buy into conspiracy theories. Here's a great Stephen Schneider video that is easy to understand but it's just over an hour long. It might help some people who feel they can't understand the wording of studies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfR3MQAloXI

That response sidesteps the question entirely.

According to both Oxfam and the IPCC, in our haste to stave off climate change with ethanol we did harm.

It does not seem appropriate to me to suggest either organization was "buying into conspiracy theories" when they provided what seemed to me to be their honest assessments of the effectiveness of the ethanol program and the program's detrimental results.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that believing Dr. Stephen Schneider engaged in activism is "buying into conspiracy theories"?