Stephen Schneider: Den dobbelte etiske forpligtelse

Here is the published quote from that interview with Discover, from which selected lines have been used for over a decade as "proof" that I exaggerate environmental threats:

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.

The Detroit News selectively quoted this passage, already not in full context, in an attack editorial on 22 November 1989:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. 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. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

The most egregious omission in the Detroit News quotation is of the last line of the Discover quote, the one about being both honest and effective. The Detroit News clearly misquotes me, presumably since including the addendum would have weakened the effectiveness of their character attack. In response, I prepared a rebuttal containing the full quote and the context of my interview, which actually showed that I disapproved of the sound-bite system and the media's polarization of the climate change debate. (See the Detroit News editorial and my rebuttal).

Min konklusion er at Stephen Schneiders indlæg primært skal tolkes som (2), men at der også er elementer af tolkning (3) i hans indlæg

Kosmos skrev:
For mig at se er 'bundlinien', at man skal være påpasselig med at sammenblande rollerne som forsker og debattør - især når man debatterer inden for {eller 'i omegnen af'} forskningsområdet: Man løber i så fald en alvorlig risiko for at problematisere sin troværdighed, i hvert tilfælde som forsker!

Enhver af os må beslutte hvad den rigtige balance skal være mellem det at være effektiv og ærlig.

...en advarsel mod et langs større problem bliver overhørt, fordi man ikke lytter til videnskaben mere men snarere til religionen, der...

I stedet for at takke mig det omhyggelige indlæg med både på engelsk og med en dansk oversættelse og for at afklare en fejlfortolkning, kommer du med et sur opstød unden nogen for form indrømmelse af, at det kan være forskellige tolkningsmuligheder of omtalte citat

- tjaeh, det er jo altid tankevækkende, når der skal bruges så mange ord på at (bort)forklare et uheldigt udsagn, som vel i bund og grund blot opsummerer det gode gamle: 'Overdrivelse fremmer forståelsen'!

I tried to explain to Schell how to be both effective and honest: by using metaphors that simultaneously convey both urgency and uncertainty, and also by producing supporting documents of all types and lengths (see the "scientist popularizer"). Unfortunately, this clarification is absent from the Discover article, and this omission opened the door for fifteen years of subsequent distortions and attacks.

For mig at se er 'bundlinien', at man skal være påpasselig med at sammenblande rollerne som forsker og debattør - især når man debatterer inden for {eller 'i omegnen af'} forskningsområdet: Man løber i så fald en alvorlig risiko for at problematisere sin troværdighed, i hvert tilfælde som forsker!

Selvfølgelig bryder benægtere sig ikke om at høre klimaforskernes bastante konklusioner, ligesom Enhedslisten sikkert heller ikke bryder sig om vismændenes konklusioner - og derfor skriger de selvfølgelig op om politisering, sammenblanding af roller, alarmisme osv. osv. Den slags skal Schneider og vismændene naturligvis bare være ophøjet ligeglade med (som et udtryk for de sædvanlige mistænktes forudsigelige og ligegyldige brok) og fortsætte deres udmærkede arbejde.

Den slags skal Schneider og vismændene naturligvis bare være ophøjet ligeglade med (som et udtryk for de sædvanlige mistænktes forudsigelige og ligegyldige brok) og fortsætte deres udmærkede arbejde

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

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

Hvis de altså er indforståede med, at udsagn à là:

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

...kan medføre en vis naturlig skepsis {/'klimakvalme'} hos deres læsere, så skal de da blot køre videre i dén rille!