<< DUCK SEASON ~ MAIN ~ DARRYL DREAMS >>
ELEVEN YEARS IN AN ETHICAL BIND
Global warm-monger Stephen Schneider ramps up the fear in 1996:
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.
Hit the above link. He’s still offering up simplified, scary scenarios.
UPDATE. Hey, everybody! The Australian Conservation Foundation has exciting news:
Want to win your very own DVD copy of Al Gore’s inspiring documentary, An Inconvenient Truth?
No!
We’ve got ten copies of An Inconvenient Truth to give away!
Local landfill all maxed out again?
To be in the running to win one, just tell us, in 25 words or less, what action YOU are taking in your day-to-day life to address climate change.
On Sunday I ran the air-con at home for eight hours straight. Climate didn’t change for a second.
Maybe you leave the car at home one day a week?
Maybe, if I have someone else’s car to drive.
Or make the effort to switch off lights when you aren’t in the room?
That would require quite an effort. Who am I, Stretch Armstrong?
Whatever action you take, we want to know about it! Entries close Friday February 2.
You heard the sap. Send those entries in.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
To lie, or not to lie: that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of truthful debate,
Or to tell whoppers to the masses,
And by artful deceipt, to snow them? To lie, to debate no more; and by a lie to say we end the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to; ‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.With apologies to William Shakespeare
So, Schneider created the “Fake but accurate” meme so in vogue with the left today, hmmmmmmm?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 01 29 at 10:25 AM • permalinkTim: Hilarious takedown of the Australian Conservation Foundation’s enticing offer! I’d enter but, (a) I’m not Australian and (b) I’ll be busy entering HGTV’s $2MM luxury-home give-away contest.
How do I “address” climate change? “Good morning Gaia, Illustrious and Fickle Bitch-Goddess of Weather. What sadistic climate changes do you have in store for us today?”
Somebody on this blog pointed out something true. It is not really the “science” that is bogus. It has been exagerated woefully by the watermellons in the press, but the science is ok.
Where the climate models break down is the economic analysis. The Stern Report for example, is ridiculous on the face of it. The risible assumptions that go into predicting economic growth, and by extension, CO2 production used in these models is where the focus needs to be.
Oh yeah, and we rely on the Chinese govt to report to use their cabon use. I wonder if it is the same guy who was responsible for reporting on SARS?
Another question I have, and I do not know the answer for this, do the models take into account the “consensus” among those who study these things that the worlds population is expected to peak sometime in this century?
This is an incredibly difficult problem that requires not just a “multidisciplinary” approach, but experts in each field, not just some jack of all trades “computer scientist” that is good at creating scary graphs.
And by “problem”, I mean achieving even a minimal understanding of the interplay of human economic activity and the climate. Right now the solutions are “hacks”, a hack is defined in “computer science” as an attempt to solve a problem without understanding it.
Boy I feel better getting that rant off my chest.
By the way, it has be between -15 and +15F degrees here for the last week or more. And the +15s have been rare. The ice on the lake is now a foot thick. So I guess we dodged disaster for another year.
This guy is good. Not long ago I read a book on Joseph Goebbels. This guy Schneider, has virtually used the same justification as old JG used to justify Germany’s foreign policy. Similiar drivel about what is good for the people, and that we must use any method in which to get our message across. When queried about the, then free press in Germany, he said we will keep repeating the message over and over again, eventually they will fall into line, without even questioning the situation.
"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
So when environmentalists say “humans are responsible for climate change” they are capturing “the public’s imagination” in order “to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change”, this is a good thing.
But when someone says “terrorists are responsible for terrorism” they are “disregarding the nuance of the situation” in order to “fight a war against a verb” - and this is a bad thing.
Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 01 29 at 11:02 AM • permalinkIn response to #4, he is not talking about a Russian Lugar, but playing Russian Roulette with a Lugar i.e. an automatic. Which would be a very bad thing, because if it is loaded you will “lose”.
But given this his maths are all screwed up in that he is saying a 10% chance of global climate distruction is worse than a 17% chance of getting killed in standard Russian Roulette (1 out of 6). Which to his feveared mind actually makes some sense.
Bart
There’s no ‘double ethical bind’ for this clown, it’s a simple ethical problem: he decided they should lie.
I address climate change as follows: since my carbon footprint partly depends on
How often I hit the range,
Which guns I fire, and
How many rounds fired,
I try to enlarge my footprint at every opportunity....25 words or less?? Geez!
I had to content myself with:
I will be burning much more wood in the fireplace this winter and I will be driving out each day in my SUV to buy it
.It’s 26 words, I know. I sure hope this doesn’t disqualify me from winning this valuable prize.
I’ll be really pissed off if rhhardin wins ane of these exciting and informative DVDs and I don’t.
Posted by Jack from Montreal on 2007 01 29 at 12:34 PM • permalinkMy point is that the models contain economic and demographic predictions that are pure socialist phantasmagoria.
Any scientist who thinks he can included ‘fudge factors’ to stand in for the above, and out of his area of competence, because, after all, Newton fudged his experiments, is not a scientist, but a propagandist.
Incidentally, I don’t include the “hockey stick” graphs as science. They won’t release the calculations that they use, so one can only assume prestidigitation (pardon the pun). I have never heard of a scientist withholding his calculation methods.
I have devised an apparatus to recycle one’s own flatulence back to the nose, to be recycled with each breath, thus preventing air pollution.
One word to spare, and a sure bet to win.
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2007 01 29 at 02:00 PM • permalinkI sent one in that should make the younger, less manually dexterous greenies somewhat unhappier when they understand the impact of their decision to buy a car with an automatic transmission. “What, me? Have to learn to drive a manual? Can’t we make automatics better?”
"Force people to drive manual cars instead of automatic immediately saving at least 5% on their petrol use and millions of tons of CO2"
Posted by Jack Lacton on 2007 01 29 at 04:55 PM • permalink#26 chrisgo
The “scary scenarios” have forced governments to take another look at the nuclear power option.
In some ways, the Greenies’ ridiculous hyperbole has been a blessing in disguise.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 29 at 05:06 PM • permalinkI cut down the trees on my land and burn them before they can rot into methane.
I keep the chain sharp on my saw so as not to waste gas.
I never use my SUV when I would rather ride my snowmobile.
If anybody mentions Al Gore as anything but the butt of a joke on my boat, I throw them overboard, thus saving fuel and reducing emissions.
I eat nothing but meat, berries, and animal fat, this Eskimo type diet greatly reduces my personal methane emissions and puts me in touch with my inner polar bear.
How could I ever restrict it to 25 words?!?
I am a regular climate saint!
I can’t help but think of the South Park episode where everybody bought hybrids and fell in love with the smell of their own farts.
#5 KK.
Man, are you going to be in trouble! Next you’ll be revealing the easter eggs and secret portals on that “shopfront” site! Expect a visit from MarkL or Wron himself.
*edges away from KK towards the door, whilst keeping back to the wall, the declares in overly loud voice*
“No, KK, I don’t know what you are talking about......ummm....I gotta go.”
So enviro-activists admit that they’d rather curse the darkness than turn on a light.
Posted by andycanuck on 2007 01 29 at 08:23 PM • permalinkDear Hippie,
My friends and I kept an air-conditioner running from Thursday night to Monday morning, sometimes with the door open. Most of the time we were frollicking in the heated pool, which was totally unnecessary because it was 40degs every freaking day. Door to the house was often left open creating a cool thermal effect at the doorway. The temp on Sunday was 40degs. Today it is 28degs. Our work?
You can keep your shitty DVD (I can sleep without assistance), but I will accept cash.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 01 29 at 08:55 PM • permalinkHey I “Entered Now!”
I explained that it was -30C last night and in 6 month’s time will be +30C. So, this morning, I ran the Jeep for 30 minutes before I entered. I hope I do change the climate.
It’s cold. (Still no sign of dem Polaris Bears, tho).
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 01 29 at 09:01 PM • permalinkMoptop, actually, no, the science isn’t OK. It’s been fixed and fiddled and no longer can be considered by sensible people.
The IPCC and the lumpen bureacratiat have a lot of their easy money riding on this.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 01 29 at 09:11 PM • permalink#22 I out-bid you with my Anal Extractor which sucks the GGs out before they are even released to the environment.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 01 29 at 09:16 PM • permalinkHey, I got an emil from the ACF this morning thanking me for my entry.
So I guess I’m in with a chance.
God, I’m so excited I just don’t seem to be able to concentrate on my work (which is flooding rainforests)
Posted by Jack from Montreal on 2007 01 29 at 10:58 PM • permalinkThat would, of course be ..email..
Perview etc etc
Posted by Jack from Montreal on 2007 01 29 at 10:59 PM • permalinkNoticed the DVD for Inconvenient Whatever at JB Hi Fi. It comes in environmentally friendly packaging (including the plastic wrap apparently) and they promise to plant a tree for every DVD sold. Sort of a “buy this DVD or the seed gets it” threat.
Maybe they should have made the DVD environmentally friendly as well. Make it out of bakelite and encode it with a laser created by directing the sun with a magnifying glass.
i have been using whalanol as fuel additive reducing both my dependence on fossil fuels and my carbon footprint
i have built a small backyard nuclear reactor and have been selling the excess electricity back to the grid
Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2007 01 30 at 05:00 AM • permalinkI’m going to apply because i live in canada and the thought of someone sending a movie full of lies by airplane all the way around the world gives me warm fuzzies.
But then if gore can fly all over why not his movie.
Posted by hollingshead on 2007 01 30 at 11:18 AM • permalinkThanks for your entry! You’re now in the running to win one of 10 DVD copies of
Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. Good luck!I know everyones stopped reading the thread but,... got my email better i get it than some one less deserving.
Posted by hollingshead on 2007 01 31 at 10:51 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
So, for ten years we have had copies of this fanatic’s recipe for telling lies [with his idiotic justifications] propped upon the desks, not only of the dingbat academics, but the Terry Lanes’ of this world.