Global Warming or Hot Air?

Many of you will recall the quotation below from environmental biologist Stephen Schneider which environmentalist skeptics quote often and environmentalists claimed is often misquoted. I present the full quotation here, but it is hard to see how this differs significantly from simply quoting the final six lines, as some economists have done.

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.

It is staggering every time I read it. The right balance between being effective and honest? If one is not being effective and honest simultaneously, to what end is the effectiveness? And it appears that some scientists are becoming increasingly uneasy with taking the position of Schneider. As the Houston Chronicle reports, Kevin Vranes, "who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers," is wondering aloud if climate scientists "have created a monster" by presenting as truth what is merely conjecture.

And on the heels of this increasing skepticism about the lack of skepticism comes a statement from the IPCC Chairman that the new U.N. report "will shock people, governments into taking more serious action." The chairman of the IPCC is Rajendra Pachauri, a man who apparently has no problem blurring the line between scientist and policy advocate.

Of course, the fact still remains that even if it can be demonstrated that global warming is manmade, and proof can be offered that measures can be implemented to reverse this trend, there is still no normative case for intervention. As Bjorn Lomborg carefully explains (longer version), an accounting of the costs and benefits, as well as comparisons with other solutions to global problems, must be undertaken first. Global warming comes in at the bottom of such lists.