This is kind of like Trevor who said that GW and CC are different but really are the same.
In a fair and decent world this DR. would be sanctioned. Back when I was in high school there was a Professor at a credible university that mathematically ptoved that 2 + 2 didn't = 4. We studied his paper on it and decided that he was a crackpot. We were reasonable people back then. Now they make those crackpots into heroes.
Gary F, "Dr. Schneider was lamenting the decline of intellectual thought." If he was lamenting, why did he join in the fray? To admit one is lying is not very intellectual. You greenies have just got to learn what is intellectual and what are lies.
Peggy states, "I notice that the denial crowd also criticizes scientists they make equivocal, probabilistic statements."
1. It wasn't probabilistic, he was outright admitting to lying. There is a great difference.
2. Dr. Schneider did clarify his statement by saying, "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Clearly, by his own definition, he chose to cede his integrity and be effective, rather than be honest.
3. Regarding your statement, "In public policy if you do that then nothing ever gets done." How would you know? Apparently you never tried it. You are so used to your despicable art of lying that you wouldn't know what the truth is, even if it bit you on the nose. You fall right in line with the Nazi method of controlling the masses.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
And more importantly, you statement just says, (and you may correct me if I am wrong.) "Hey you dumb jerks! You are too dumb to know the truth. You wouldn't know what to do with it, even if we told you. It is only we, the intellectual elites, who know what is good for you. So don't bother to question us. Just bow down to us, give us your money, and relinquish all your liberties. You guys are so dumb you have to be told which light bulb to use. Trust us! You are not smart enough to decide what is right for you and your children."
This also falls in line with what your High Priest Al Gore stated, "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
So you have proven that you, Dr. Schneiderr, and Al Gore all have something in common. Lies are your only effective tool. I truly feel sorry for you, for you'll never go through life ever knowing what is true.
" ... To do that we need to get some broad based support, to (1) capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of (2) media coverage. So we have to offer up (3) scary scenarios, make simplified, (4) dramatic statements, and make (5) little mention of any doubts we might have. ... "
(1) - Capture? Does that mean getting people's attention by any means? - Diabolical???
(2) - Media coverage? Which media? NBC is part of General Electric. Obama's Government ideology gave the liberal-communistic-socialistic GE a $500 million tax credit just after he took office. Why would the media have anything to do with propagating "Global Warming"? (sarc)
(3) - Scary? Hollywood's job. All fictitious. That's why it's "Hollywood" in the media.
(4) - Dramatic? Another Hollywood stunt and a woman's touch to our court system. Use our feelings to promote justice? Just looking for a sympathetic eye (whether the sympathy is warranted or not?).
(5) - Little mention of doubts? Is this to "make sure" that "environmental climate science" has a grasp on the situation and not show the science where it is "unsure", like knowing what a 1.2 parts in 10,000 increase of CO2 in our atmosphere will cause as far as temperature increase?
This part of your quote tells the whole story!!!
Climate science "needs" people to have an imagination. That's the politics behind "financializing" carbon credits. It makes all of their efforts worth it to investors. Ask Solyndra (The Company that "suddenly" disappeared).
He was being candid, and that candor did not benefit the advance of science. However, the comments certainly don't warrant stripping of credentials or prosecution, especially in context.
I will recall one of my area's most important landmarks is a building designed by a doctor. It is a monstrosity-jangling with the mixture of architectural elements that do not fit well together, garish in the overreach of style, awkward in its layout. I always say that we already know why architects should not dabble in medicine, and this building is the best example I know of why doctors should not dabble in architecture. In a most similar way Dr. Schneider's remark could be considered one of the best examples of why scientists should not dabble in marketing.
Nonetheless, I would never take a sound byte at face value-it s very important to put any remarks in context, despite the fact that most people rely on sound bytes to form their largely unsophisticated opinions. Perhaps even more elusive is the ability to grasp the concept of time and place, a topic in and of itself worthy of further discussion.
How typically Denier – a question (and the expected paranoid delusional answers from jim and sage) that combines stupidity, lying, and hypocrisy. Deniers think that the scientific debate can be – and should be – decided by staged public debates.
And, if you actually knew – or cared – about the context of that statement, you would know that
Dr. Schneider was lamenting the decline of intellectual thought to 30-second media sound bites. That was in 1989 when the problem was far more benign than now when cherry-picked statements and intentional lies are deliberate political tactics of the radical, conspiracy-freak, pro-stupid Denier agenda.
Every Denier here is guilty of cowardly defamation and threats against people they do not know over things that they are too stupid to understand and too morally and intellectually bankrupt to care that they don’t know. Deniers are the Poster Children for the gutless swine who use the anonymity of the internet to bully and lie – but who lack the integrity and courage to say anything if it means assuming any personal responsibility.
I certainly do not think he should be stripped of anything for comments. If he was falsifying data, that would be one thing. Honestly, if climate scientists want to be regarded as a psuedo-science in the scientific community, that is their business. They still have freedom of speech and I don't intend to take this away.
BUT, everyone should take note. Anyone who has run a tightly controlled study trying to find if there is a statistically significant difference and accounting for all forms of bias, know that even showing something like "second-hand is bad for you" can be a daunting task. In fact, the first EPA study done on the subject had too few subjects and found no statistically significant difference.
The level of certianty claimed by the climate scientists given what they are trying to find, is so absurd as to be disgustingly humorous. They are modeling and pretend that their models are the same as running controlled trials. If I attempted to give the FDA a model as evidence that a drug is safe and effective, they would roll on the floor laughing at me. In fact, I would become the laugh-stock of the entire industry. The industry would be rife with blond jokes, where they replace the blond with me.
So when people like Gary F go on their little tirades making fun of people who are skeptical of their claims, ... , well I find it funny. It makes me laugh. To claim so much certainty with so little reason for certainty... too funny.
I wasn't aware of this particular quote but it sure was obvious what they were doing and continue to do. That was quite a while ago and I am sure he probably wishes he just kept his mouth shut. I don't have as much anger at those who think they are trying to help as I do those who are simply trying to get their political agenda through. I have plenty of anger though because science suffers with their exaggerations and we all suffer as they try to exaggerate in order to push an otherwise unpopular agenda. There is a reason they have to lie.
Luckily, I don't have to white lie to my wife (she is the only one I know who can wear her high school clothes 30 years later) well except to claim that I didn't have any dessert for lunch. I really didn't have any chocolate for lunch. OK, maybe I did, but I didn't publish that either.
Of course not. You want to call him out for being candid? In science it's important to let people know the limitations of your research, what the margin of error is, etc. In public policy if you do that then nothing ever gets done. Did you ever hear one of your political heroes saying "If we cut taxes, there's a 39% probablility that the economy will improve"? I don't think so. In scientific writing (e.g. for journals) then Schneider can and did express the caveats that went with the results--there is no such requirement in rhetoric. If people ask, then you should be prepared to let them know, but if you start giving people probabilities (which they won't understand anyway), they'll just throw up their hands and say "Who cares?"
I notice that the denial crowd also criticizes scientists they make equivocal, probabilistic statements. As usual, your philosophy is to throw slop whenever you can, regardless of whether it contradicts the slop you threw last week.
Anybody in authority, should tell the truth the real truth and nothing but the truth, and face consequences if they don't.
Okay we all tell white lies now and again, (if your wife says do I look pretty, well you know what I mean) In publiuc affairs the truth should and must be adhered too.
He wasn't because he didn't live in Nazi Germany.
"1989 -“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.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989"
