Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Schneider (scientist): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Query re S's timing.
Rubbish
Line 12: Line 12:


And adds that it was "Edited by Stephen Schneider.". So if we are to trust aip (and its been used elsewhere...) it seems S was in the warming camp by 1977.
And adds that it was "Edited by Stephen Schneider.". So if we are to trust aip (and its been used elsewhere...) it seems S was in the warming camp by 1977.

== Rubbish ==

This article is rubbish. I know, I'm partly to blame. its been fought over in the climate wars, and needs to go back to being mainly a biog. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-05 10:56:39 (UTC).

Revision as of 10:56, 5 July 2005

"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." (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996, http://cyclotron.aps.org/apsnews/0896/11592.html). (source: Bjorn Lomborg [1])


(William M. Connolley 12:36, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)) The article currently says "two decades later schneider emerged as an advocate of GW" or somesuch. Is this hearsay or sourced? Ie, did Sch start saying GW stuff in 1991? If so what? He supposedly said:

"Global warming linked to emissions of CO2, methane and other gases] is a scientific phenomenon beyond doubt. It's only a question of how much warming there will be." - Quoted by David L. Chandler of the Boston Globe, January 23, 1989 [2]

Which makes it 1989 at the lastest. Though http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm says:

1977, one landmark for the recognition and coalescence of a scientific discipline did come with the foundation of a dedicated journal, Climatic Change. But unlike many new journals, this one did not in fact launch itself as the flagship of a new discipline. Its explicit policy was to publish papers that were mainly interdisciplinary, such as explorations of the consequences that global warming might have on ecosystems.

And adds that it was "Edited by Stephen Schneider.". So if we are to trust aip (and its been used elsewhere...) it seems S was in the warming camp by 1977.

Rubbish

This article is rubbish. I know, I'm partly to blame. its been fought over in the climate wars, and needs to go back to being mainly a biog. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 10:56:39 (UTC).