Dr Schneider explaining something.
Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University, is a well-respected climatologist who is also quite active in the media and politics – chances are you’ve seen him in something like The 11th Hour, read one of his books, or read an interview with him in the newspaper. Chances are, you’ve also seen the following quote attributed to him:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means 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. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
When I first saw this quote in a YouTube comment, I assumed it was completely fabricated. But then I did a Google search on the exact quote and found thousands of hits. Still, they were all from either blogs or newspaper editorials, which are quite low on our credibility spectrum, so I felt sure there must be more to the story. My guess was that it was taken completely out of context and/or rearranged like one of those “found poems” they make you write in elementary school. I had seen Dr Schneider’s work before and he seemed like much too reasonable a man to say something like this and mean it.
I wrote an email to Dr Schneider, asking if he could quickly explain where the quote came from, even though he’s probably been asked about it countless times. I’ve found that university professors, even those like Dr Schneider who are undoubtedly busy, are quite good about answering email. As long as you’re polite and show a genuine interest in having your question answered, they write back quite promptly with some direction for you.
“You have guessed right,” he wrote. “It is a major misquote….leaving out the last sentence, leaving out the context….it is all explained in the Mediarology section of my website.”
Those who are really interested in this story are welcome to go and read that explanation, but I’ll summarize it quickly here for the rest of us. In a 1988 interview with Discover magazine, Dr Schneider was explaining how the media does not give climatologists a lot of time to explain anything thoroughly. As a scientist, he has an obligation to include all error and uncertainty measurements in statements, like any legitimate scientific report would. But as a human being, he needs to convey his message to the public in the couple of sentences journalists allow him.
This was the original quote:
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 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 climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means 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.
With the full quote, it’s easy to see that Dr Schneider was attacking, not supporting, the “sound-bite system”. But an attack editoral from the Detroit News selectively cut out parts of the above quote, publishing the following:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means 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. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
His message is completely changed.
So what should we learn from the sad story of the Schneider quote?
Whenever you see something particularly outrageous-sounding, don’t just accept it as fact. Find the original source, the original interview. Email the guy if you have to. Figure out what they really meant. Then you have enough information to decide what to believe.
Nanci said
Excellent story! Thanks for presenting it for us. It’s important to deconstruct the fossil-fueled lies out there.
climatesight said
Hi Nanci, thanks for your comment (first ever on ClimateSight!) and also for letting me know about the typo. I’ll be writing more about skepticism in the weeks and months to come. I wouldn’t say it’s all fossil-fueled, or that it’s all lies, but I have yet to find anything legitimate and credible that challenges the mainstream scientific view.
MTGAP said
What we really need is a way to persuade those who are religiously convinced that global warming is not real, and convince them with evidence. But how to do that? That is the real challenge here. When I browse the internet and find so many global warming “skeptics”, it depresses me. But in the general media there seem to be rather few skeptics, so we may not all die after all.
MTGAP said
I like the photograph description.
climatesight said
Hi there MTGAP,
Thanks for commenting. The presence of skeptics is a complex issue that I’ll be writing a LOT more about soon – keep your eyes open for new posts. Internet searches make me depressed too sometimes, but keep in mind that the presence of skeptics is hugely over-represented online and even in the popular media. There really aren’t that many of them. We also have the government on our side :)
Charles said
If you’re honest you do tell the truth. Even if you don’t want to, you tell the truth.
bluetwinky said
Steven Schneider’s Mediarology section of his website makes for some facinating reading. The degree of thoughtfullness and nuance demonstrated makes an interesting contrast to the rhetoric of the opposition.
eli oliem said
the full quote is still embarrasing for the science comunity
Ann said
I came across this post while trying to verify the truncated Schneider quote and appreciate your work in tracking it down.
However, I have to agree with eli oliem that the full quote is not much of an improvement over the edited one. Schneider acknowledges that there is a conflict between hewing to the scientific method and efficacy as a person who would “like to see the world a better place.” What this quote implies is that he is willing to compromise the first in order to advance the second. But the reason the public gives weight to pronouncements by scientists is because of our assumption that scientists will be governed by the ethical duties of science, not because we care what political goals they want to advance as “human beings.”
climatesight said
I think most of what Schneider was trying to imply was that speaking in a scientific tone to a media outlet wouldn’t work. People would read all the uncertainty statements and would misunderstand climate change to be a shaky topic in science. Saying “We’re causing warming and it’ll be really really bad” would never be acceptable in a scientific document, but it’s the message scientists want to get across to the public because that’s what they’ll understand….not all the “ifs, ands, or buts”.
I think that’s most of the conflict he was referring to. I doubt he was willing to change the meaning of his statements between science and the media. Just the way they were stated.
Ann said
To my mind, once a scientist begins choosing his words to advance his political or policy agenda rather than the science, he is no longer speaking as a scientist but as an advocate.
As you say, Schneider finds that speaking in the measured, careful manner of a scientist “doesn’t work” but that’s because his goal is not science but advocacy. Speaking that way works just fine for science. Granted plenty of people are scientifically illiterate, but he’s not helping educate them, he’s only helping persuade them, which is not a scientific goal, and he’s losing credibility with the rest of us. All those inconvenient “ifs, ands or buts” are NEEDED to make the statements as close to true as they can be. Omit them, and it’s just plain lying.
Society needs SCIENTISTS, as well as advocates with a science background. Schneider has chosen to become the latter, which is his right, but I think it is unfair to then expect people to unquestioningly bow to his scientific expertise. As any courtroom lawyer can tell you, there are experts and then there are the hired guns and the cultists. They usually all have the paper credentials, but experts know their limits and stay well within them, while the hired guns do what they are paid to do and the cultists do what they passionately need to do. Hired guns and cultists have both been known to be right, but you actually need an expert who is neither to tell you when that’s the case.
Sorry, but I have limited use for a scientist who finds the language and methods of science too constraining in meeting his goal of changing the world. Unfortunately, on the issue of climate change and a growing number of others, it looks like even scientists who would prefer to remain scientists may be putting their careers and funding on the line by declining to become advocates.
climatesight said
I think it’s okay to be both a scientist and an advocate as long as you keep them separate. Be a scientist in the scientific literature; be very aware of your advocacy bias and make sure it’s not swaying you. But making statements of advocacy in the media is just fine. Even scientists are human beings. They just have to be careful to only be one at a time.
climatesight said
Read Stephen Schneider’s media page on his Stanford website for more context – it explains in WAY more detail his opinion on science vs advocacy, and gives even more context to the quote (click on the Double Ethical Bind Pitfall for the relevant section).
Marion Delgado said
“it looks like even scientists who would prefer to remain scientists may be putting their careers and funding on the line by declining to become advocates.”
This is a conclusion unrelated to any data – it springs from the projection by manipulative corporate-funded anti-science advocates of their own status onto science. I challenge Ann to give even one example, ever, of a scientist who put their career or funding on the line by declining to become an advocate. And talk-radio – not a data source.
Chaz said
I don’t agree with your analysis of the full quote – it’s just as flawed as the original, apart from the very last phrase, which is quite disingenuous. if you are seeking to misrepresent for the purposes of impact, which is what he states, then to claim somehow to be honest in doing so is nothing more than an attempt at self-justification.
Your analysis, reading between the lines and drawing out subtle inferences is also flawed. To use a horrible phrase: it is what it is. and it ain’t what you are trying to say it is.
[He is not saying what you think he's saying. He's criticizing what you think he's saying, using it as kind of an example of how the media traps scientists into two categories. Even the full quote doesn't have enough context. Read his Mediarology statement (link in the post) for more detail. -Kate]
Phil said
Ms. Delgado,
Ever? Charles Darwin, Copernicus, Galileo, Joseph Lister, Tesla.
Shall I go on?
mikehell said
[citations needed - global warming stopped in 1998 and the authors of articles in Science can't assess their own data correctly]
mikehell said
[inflammatory]
Bluetwinky said
Having reread the comments to this article I am struck by a point, which is as follows:
Ann makes the distinction between those who speak as advocates and those who speak as scientists. She then vehemently objects to Schneider acting as an advocate, and tells us that this takes away from his credibility. She tells us:
“All those inconvenient “ifs ands or buts” are NEEDED to make the statements as close to true as they can be. Omit them, and it’s just plain lying.”
The word “cultists” was also used.
The question which arises is whether she and like minded people are as indignant when men like Mr. Christy, Mr. Spencer, and Mr. Lindzen act as advocates, and they have done so. Are they just plain lying? I suspect that she will not trouble herself to make that accusation.
mikehell said
[inflammatory]