Monday, January 29, 2007
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.