Recommend following the link to see a marvellous analysis by Schneider.
While seems to have no patience with people who exaggerate to make a point,
he doesn't seem to be a fence-sitter to me.

D

David Ballard
Alexander, Ballard & Associates
Strategy and human change for environmental sustainability
(00 44) (0) 5600 433801 - work
(00 44) (0) 1672 520561 - home
(00 44) (0) 7840 544226 - mobile
Skype: ballardd
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.alexanderballard.co.uk 

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Keene
Sent: 02 January 2006 13:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: "Mediarology" Stephen Schneider

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html?ht
tp://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html

I thought members of Crisis Forum would be interested in this piece from 
American climate scientist Stephen Schneider. Note that he disagrees 
with the deep ecology groups. Where *does* the truth lie? Do Greens 
really exaggerate the problems? There is also some interesting 
discussion of the role of the media, and of scientists

Chris

"Mediarology"
""End of the world" and "good for the Earth" are, in my experience, the 
two lowest probability cases."
Special interest groups followed the IPCC proceedings closely. Given the 
broad range of possible outcomes, proponents of the many sides of the 
climate change debate (often dichotomized into " ignore the problem " 
versus "stop it " camps, though it is actually an issue with many, many 
sides) deliberately selected and continue to select information out of 
context that best supports their ideological positions and their or 
their clients' interests. They frequently practice a phenomenon I call 
"courtroom epistemology": refusing to acknowledge that an issue (climate 
change, in this case) is multifaceted, and presenting only their own 
arguments, ignoring opposing views. Deep ecology groups point to the 
most pessimistic outcomes, using their warnings of climate catastrophe 
to push for the creation and implementation of energy taxes, abatement 
policies, and renewable energy promotion and subsidies (as many believe 
renewable energy is "the solution). Clearly, such policies would affect 
the industries that produce and use the most energy, especially the oil 
and auto industries. The auto, oil, and other fossil fuel-intensive 
industry groups, uncoincidentally, tend to be the extreme optimists in 
the global warming debate though, ironically, they often are the 
pessimists when it comes to estimating the costs of fixing the problem. 
They attempt to trivialize the potential hazards of climate change and 
focus on the least serious outcomes and the most expensive mitigation 
policies to discourage political action.
This plays into the media's tendency to engage in "balanced" reporting: 
polarizing an issue (despite its being multifaceted) and making each 
"side" equally credible. The media dutifully report the dueling 
positions of ecology and industry, further confusing policymakers and 
the public with an endless parade of op-eds and stories quoting those 
suggesting that global warming is either "good for the Earth and too 
expensive to fix anyway" or "the end of the world but nonetheless 
relatively cheap to solve with solar or wind power." "End of the world" 
and "good for the Earth" are, in my experience, the two lowest 
probability cases (as are "it would bankrupt us to mitigate climate 
changes" and "technology will solve climate change at no cost"). Neither 
side usually offers probabilities of such outcomes.
"Just because we scientists have Ph.D.s we should not hang up our 
citizenship at the door of a public meeting."
Eliminating this confusion and misrepresentation of the climate change 
debate requires the participation of scientists, citizens, and 
journalists alike. First, scientists should not be discouraged on 
principle to enter the public debate on climate change both as 
scientist-advocates and scientist popularizers; if they don't, 
popularization of potential probabilities and consequences of climate 
change will occur without their input and will likely be more 
inaccurate. A scientist should also transcend prejudices against 
non-frequentist (i.e., subjective) analysis and treat climate change 
like the issue that it is: one for which future empirical data cannot be 
obtained (as it is simply impossible to obtain hard data for events 
occurring in the future) and which therefore necessitates the use of 
Bayesian, or subjective, probabilities and projections/models - our 
'cloudy crystal balls' - that compile all the information we can 
possibly bring to bear on the problem, including, but not limited to, 
direct measurements and statistics. It is scientists, not policymakers, 
who should provide subjective probabilistic assessments of climate 
change. Just because we scientists have Ph.D.s we should not hang up our 
citizenship at the door of a public meeting - we too are entitled to 
advocate personal opinions, but we also have a special obligation to 
make our value judgments explicit. If they do express opinions, 
scientists should attempt to keep their value judgments out of the 
scientific assessment process but should make their personal values and 
prejudices clear regardless. It is then the role of the 
scientist-popularizer to propagate and promote these assessments and 
values in an understandable manner in the public realm so that the 
scientific community's findings and the scientist's ideas are heard and 
his/her suggestions are available. An effective scientist-popularizer 
must balance the need to be heard (good sound bites) with the 
responsibility to be honest (see "the double ethical bind pitfall") as 
well. Doing both is essential.
Citizens must demand that scientists provide honest, credible 
assessments that answer the "three questions of environmental literacy": 
1) What can happen?; 2) What are the odds of it happening?; and 3) How 
are such estimates made? Citizens must also achieve a certain level of 
environmental, political, and scientific literacy themselves so that 
they feel comfortable distinguishing climate change fact from fiction 
and making critical value judgments and policy decisions, in essence 
becoming "citizen scientists". Just as popularization of potential 
probabilities and consequences will occur with or without input from 
scientists, policy decisions will be made with or without input from an 
informed citizenry. I hope that citizens will take responsibility for 
increasing their scientific, political, and environmental literacy and 
recognize the importance of the positive effect that an informed public 
will have on the policy process.
Citizens and scientists clearly can't operate as completely separate 
entities in the climate change debate. Their interaction is essential, 
especially when it comes to "rolling reassessment". Given the uncertain 
nature of climate change, citizens and scientists should work together 
to initiate flexible policies and management schemes that are revisited, 
say, every five years. The key word here is flexible. Knowledge is not 
static - there are always new outcomes to discover and old theories to 
rule out. New knowledge allows us to reevaluate theories and policy 
decisions and make adjustments to policies that are too stringent, too 
lax, or targeting the wrong cause or effect. Both scientist-advocates 
and citizen-scientists must see to it that once we've set up political 
establishments to carry out policy that people do not become so vested 
in a certain process or outcome that they become reluctant to make 
adjustments, either to the policies or the institutions.
"Citizens should make sure that the public debates take into account all 
knowledge available on climate change."
In addition, citizens and scientists must coordinate with journalists 
and other media figures to ensure accuracy in the media portrayal of 
climate change (see The Journalist-Scientist-Citizen Triangle). We 
scientists need to take more proactive roles in the public debate. We 
need to help journalists by agreeing to participate in the public 
climate change debate and by using clear metaphors and ordinary language 
once we do so. We should go out of our way to write review papers from 
time to time and to present talks that stress well-established 
principles at the outset of our meetings. Before we turn to more 
speculative, cutting-edge science; we should deliberately outline the 
consensus before revealing the contention. Citizens should make sure 
that the public debates take into account all knowledge available on 
climate change. Hopefully, their actions will encourage reporters to 
replace the knee-jerk model of "journalistic balance" with a more 
accurate and fairer doctrine of "perspective": one that communicates not 
only the range of opinion, but also the relative credibility of each 
opinion within the scientific community. (Fortunately, most 
sophisticated science and environment reporters have abandoned the 
journalistic tradition of polarization of only two "sides", but 
nevertheless, especially in the political arena, such falsely 
dichotomous "balance" still exists).