RE: EPA's evolving role - 2-way communication & trust

[Rich Puchalsky <rpuchalsky@att.net>]

Phil Chapman writes:
"This attitude was expressed well by Stephen Schneider, an advocate of draconian responses to global warming, in an interview in "Discover" magazine, Oct 1989: "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." "

You have quoted a deliberate lie by the anti-environmental lobby, created by a little selective editing.  Here is the actual text of what Schneider said in that interview:

"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."

Source: American Physical Society News Online August/September 1996 Edition