Difference between revisions of "Stephen Schneider"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(What is this about??)
(References: Spelling, grammar, and general fixes)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{stub}}
 
 
 
[[Image:StephenSchneider.gif|right|thumb]]
 
[[Image:StephenSchneider.gif|right|thumb]]
 
'''Stephen Schneider''' wrote this in 1989:
 
'''Stephen Schneider''' wrote this in 1989:
Line 9: Line 7:
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
[[category:scientists]]
+
{{DEFAULTSORT:Schneider, Stephen}}
 +
[[Category:Scientists]]

Latest revision as of 14:25, June 24, 2016

StephenSchneider.gif

Stephen Schneider wrote this in 1989:

  • On the one hand 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, caveats, ifs 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 have to get some broad-based 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” which 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.[1]

References

  1. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/02/10/a-misinformed-public/