Talk:Stephen Schneider

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Discover 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 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." (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996, http://cyclotron.aps.org/apsnews/0896/11592.html). (source: Bjorn Lomborg [1])

Schneider critics emphasize the first bolded passage (emphasis added for wiki talk); supporters emphasize the second one. --Uncle Ed 19:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Critics tend to use the first quote out-of-context; neutral folk emphasise the full context William M. Connolley 19:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the first bolded passage is pretty damning and speaks for itself. I don't see anything in the context that mitigates it. The second bolded passage just expresses the same thought in softer terms. It suggests that he even though he had doubts and a chance to reconsider, he chose to stand by the substance of the original thought. The ridiculously long version of the quote we now have in the article is appearently designed to bore readers with trivia so they can't focus on the relevent material. Kauffner 06:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The full quote doesn't support the "scary scenario", which is why it is almost never given, and is occasionally spiced up, as in Julian Simon's version. By endorsing the use of a "simplified, dramatic" version of the quote, to avoid "boring the readers" you are adopting exactly the position which you impute to Schneider and regard as "damning". You can't have it both ways. JQ 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The context for this is K's embarassment over at t:LIA [2] where he has just discovered that his pet sources have been using the truncated quote. Rather than blame them for misleading him, he has to blame Schneider, and would like this article to mislead too William M. Connolley 18:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

(William M. Connolley 12:36, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)) The article currently says "two decades later schneider emerged as an advocate of GW" or somesuch. Is this hearsay or sourced? Ie, did Sch start saying GW stuff in 1991? If so what? He supposedly said:

"Global warming linked to emissions of CO2, methane and other gases] is a scientific phenomenon beyond doubt. It's only a question of how much warming there will be." - Quoted by David L. Chandler of the Boston Globe, January 23, 1989 [3]

Which makes it 1989 at the lastest. Though http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm says:

1977, one landmark for the recognition and coalescence of a scientific discipline did come with the foundation of a dedicated journal, Climatic Change. But unlike many new journals, this one did not in fact launch itself as the flagship of a new discipline. Its explicit policy was to publish papers that were mainly interdisciplinary, such as explorations of the consequences that global warming might have on ecosystems.

And adds that it was "Edited by Stephen Schneider.". So if we are to trust aip (and its been used elsewhere...) it seems S was in the warming camp by 1977.

[edit] Rubbish

This article is rubbish. I know, I'm partly to blame. its been fought over in the climate wars, and needs to go back to being mainly a biog. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 10:56:39 (UTC).