Tweet
"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." -Stephen Schneider, global warming alarmist
So how is it Science to do anything other than be 100% honest? Where in the Scientific Method does it say it's ok to be less than honest and to downplay any doubts? Where in the SM does it advocate the use of scare tactics?
It's also worth noting Schneider was one of those 'experts' predicting a coming Ice Age in the 1970s:
"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." -Stephen Schneider, 1971
No wonder the guy supports the side that alters and deletes data that disproves their hypothesis. And these hucksters managed to snooker you!! Geez, Gruber really pegged you guys, didn't he?
So how is it Science to do anything other than be 100% honest? Where in the Scientific Method does it say it's ok to be less than honest and to downplay any doubts? Where in the SM does it advocate the use of scare tactics?
It's also worth noting Schneider was one of those 'experts' predicting a coming Ice Age in the 1970s:
"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." -Stephen Schneider, 1971
No wonder the guy supports the side that alters and deletes data that disproves their hypothesis. And these hucksters managed to snooker you!! Geez, Gruber really pegged you guys, didn't he?
Comment