A couple of stunning quotations

While reading the Wall Street Journal, I came across a couple of amazing statements I wanted to share with you regarding global warming and how it's reported to Americans.

Here's Al Gore, in a 2006 interview with Grist.com.

Question to Gore: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

Gore's answer: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

So, what's he saying here? Gore seems to believe hype is OK; he needs to give us speculations dressed up as scary facts. Keep in mind that Gore stands to get very rich off these tactics since he is an investor with green companies.


This is a quote from Stephen H. Schneider of Stanford University, in a 1989 Discover 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.

Sounds like Schneider is admitting scientists have biases just like the rest of us. I like his reference to capturing our attention by scary scenarios and simplified statements. Mighty close to hype again, huh?