Originally posted by drstrangelove: Good job C4. Don't let it lie! Repeat the program, follow it up, we're relying on you to combat the BBC's propaganda.
Again if you don't trust them, follow up the references they give to established science.
If you use the contrary websites then I warn you strongly to check that the papers really say what they claim. Because it's amazing how often they don't.
If someone doesn't reference peer-reviewed arguments to support what they say, they're not worth listening to.
Hobbes007, nice link. And THAT refers to peer reviewed work.
Originally posted by drstrangelove: Good job C4. Don't let it lie! Repeat the program, follow it up, we're relying on you to combat the BBC's propaganda.
Hobbes007, You are referencing a Steven Schneider website? Here is what Dr. Schneider said in 1989 in Discover magazine:
On the one hand 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, caveats, ifs 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 climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based 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” which 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.
Originally posted by GolfSup: Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
