Well, jet, do you really have coffe all over your tie? You really should not drink coffe near your computer, you know. But I believe that you made a poetic exaggregation.

That’s fine by me, though, because it doesn’t change what you are actually saying. Nor, perhaps, does condensing a 30-page text on human-affected global warming to “It happens, and it’s Bad” change what it’s actually saying.

One major difference was that the affected industries didn’t use astroturf back then – they lobbied openly. Another was that they actually put a major amount of funding into primary scientific research on the issue, and in doing so used mechanisms that insulated the researchers from pressure. (The industry money was administered by a neutral agency established by the American Chemical Society, which solicited and evaluated grant proposals through a peer-review process.) In the end, much of the scientific support for the hypothesis came out of this work.

The second phase, which followed the discovery of the Antarctic Ozone Hole, began in similar fashion, but the results of the 1987 AAOE mission were so overwhelmingly decisive that the affected industries did a quick somersault (having prepared the ground by research into CFC alternatives during the interim period.) This, together with the industry-funded research mentioned above, led to the conspiracy theory popular in the early 1990’s, to the effect that the halocarbon industries had staged the whole thing so that they could collect windfall profits from the new CFC substitutes. (The proponents of this theory argued that the patents on CFC’s were “running out” – in fact, they had expired many decades ago.)

I can’t be sure whether you just came in late, or whether you are deliberately misrepresenting what’s been said, but neither Schneider nor any of his defenders is advocating Fox-news type falsehood and demogogy. We’re just advocating putting together a dramatic, memorable, persuasive political case different than, and more simplified than, the case which would be made at a scientific conference.

Interpretation of the quote is still wide open.

Postmedernism rears its ugly head. Jet LOVES wide-open interpretations.

So reasoned debate was able to prevail against know-nothing smears and slander then. What’s different now?

Did people get dumber since 1987?

soru

And the Puchalsky link isn’t exactly at the beginning of the post.

Something else that is strange about the short quote is that it seems to have Schneider saying that there is a “need to capture the public imagination” because scientists are also human beings. Bizzare place to put the ellipses.

And of course the points in my last post were actually stated in the original post by John Quiggin. Indeed, that was the thrust of the post. Sometimes you get into arguments with people who have you back on ground that should have been settled a long time ago.

“We must make little mention of any doubts that we may have.”

Ironically enough, this quote itself is a mention of doubt. He is acknowledging that scientific journals and mainstream news sources have different standards. In science, you need to lay out all the evidence and go into all the detail and caveats. In the news media, you get a short sound bite.

What happens when Schneider acknowledges this? It gets jumped on as proof that scientists admittedly “stretch the truth” when they talk about climate change.

I guess he was wrong—obviously mentioning every single caveat is a good PR move, and you can count on your opponents not to amplify the doubts so as to twist the results.

People should read the Rich Puchalsky link from the beginning of the post. Schneider discusses the quote in some detail, which eliminates much of the need for speculation about what he is advocating exactly.

And Jet, there is an obvious difference between the full quote and the short quote. The tension in the full quote is between including all the caveats and providing simplified scenarios. The tension in the short quote is between being honest about what is going to happen and stretching the truth to provoke action.

You’ll notice that Singer in particular makes exactly the same claims against supporters of action on CFCs as are now being made against supportes of Kyoto.

And you just said, this very minute, that making up quotes is basically OK if there’s just a difference of “nuance”, and that only true believers object. That’s as bad as anything Schneider’s been accused of.

Why should I take you seriously as an arbiter of honest political debate.

So back in the 70’s was it “Schneider’s understanding of the science caused him to become a advocate.” that led him to tell the whole world we had to stop polluting or enter another ice age? Yes, he was absolutely sure of the science before he started advocating our impending coldness.

And “As the original post here pointed out, Schneider’s adversaries started out by making up a quote, and most of them have track records worse than Schneider’s.” doesn’t mean a whole lot since almost everyone agreed that the made up quotes were in the same spirit as the original. Only a kneejerk supporter would instantly be able to see the nuance.

“But to the CATO people, as soon as he became an advocate, he was just as sleazy as them…”. For those who have followed some of his scandals, he has done some sleazy things. If you looked at both sides of the Schneider Lomborg Science debacle, you might even see how people could come to this conclusion, as in some lights his article was sleazy, dishonest, and unkind in the extreme.

Now granted I’ve just been harsher on Schneider than he deserves as he is obviously a man of good will, but he has traded his scientific integrity for a megaphone a few times in the past.

The reason this quote has stayed alive is Schneider has, on occasion, been accused of spinning things.

Bullshit, Jet. The reason the quote has been kept alive is because Schneider has been involved in a political debate all that time. As the original post here pointed out, Schneider’s adversaries started out by making up a quote, and most of them have track records worse than Schneider’s.

There are lots of fake quotes out there, and they “stay alive” because they do the job. The cheesy CATO thing you linked to wasn’t strictly fraud, but it mostly consisted of attacking the character of the envirnomentalists, which is the normal anti-environmentalist strategy. So whine all you want when I say bad things about you.

Schneider’s understanding of the science caused him to become a advocate. But to the CATO people, as soon as he became an advocate, he was just as sleazy as them (an opinion Steve shares) and “the truth must be somewhere in between”. Conservatarians don’t try to be right any more, they just try to prove that their opponents are equally bad.

The reason this quote has stayed alive is Schneider has, on occasion, been accused of spinning things.

No, it happened without the benefit of dishonest, Fox News style advocacy. To the best of my knowledge, everyone involved held honesty as a standard to aspire to, not an unfortunate disadvantage to be worked around.

soru