Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Monday November 27 2017, @07:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the we-are-doomed dept.

We may be headed for an ice apocalypse which could result in the flooding of coastal cities before the end of this century. Glaciers in Antarctica may break and release ice, exposing taller cliffs, resulting in faster melting.

"In the past few years, scientists have identified marine ice-cliff instability as a feedback loop that could kickstart the disintegration of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet this century — much more quickly than previously thought."

[...] A wholesale collapse of Pine Island and Thwaites would set off a catastrophe. Giant icebergs would stream away from Antarctica like a parade of frozen soldiers. All over the world, high tides would creep higher, slowly burying every shoreline on the planet, flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by gottabeme on Monday November 27 2017, @11:52AM (6 children)

    by gottabeme (1531) on Monday November 27 2017, @11:52AM (#602030)

    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 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’ 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.

    --Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:35PM (#602039)

    Be caught in a lie once, enjoy being a known liar since.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Monday November 27 2017, @03:57PM (2 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 27 2017, @03:57PM (#602081) Journal

    This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.

    ((You - your shrill mouth) + knock off the alarmist campaign) = solved

    Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

    Minimizing findings that detract from what you want to present and practicing deliberate confirmation bias on what you want to present is known as "charlatanism". This is a big fancy scientific word for "Lying" and practicing it makes you the reason that people widely ignore climate science reports--you make them unreliable. Hope this helps.

    Note: If you live in California and perhaps know Mr. Schneider, or if you know any scientists who also do this, please show them this article. Thanks.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by ankh on Tuesday November 28 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)

      by ankh (754) on Tuesday November 28 2017, @02:31AM (#602289) Homepage

      You can look this stuff up, or you can keep rebunking it.

      Here, Google wants to be your friend:
      https://www.metabunk.org/climate-scientist-says-scientists-should-consider-stretching-the-truth-stephen-schneider.t6850/ [metabunk.org]

      -----excerpt follows-------
      Rebuttals of this claim by Stephen Schneider:
      ...
      Before Stephen Schneider passed away in 2010 he wrote several rebuttals to these accusations. In general he explained the topic of the Discovery interview the quote comes from, which was the problem scientists face in media with limited time slots available to discuss complex scientific issues. Most often the last line(s) of his quote is omitted.
      The last lines being:
      "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"

      Nov 1989 full rebuttal to Detroit News (above): here's a small piece
      ss.PNG
      http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf [stanford.edu]

      • (Score: 2) by gottabeme on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:08AM

        by gottabeme (1531) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:08AM (#602790)

        LOL, you think that the frequently omitted last line of the quote (N.B. I did not omit it) absolves him? He's telling scientists that they should lie, as long as it's important enough. In other words, the ends justify the means.

        Typical leftist, trying but utterly failing to grasp principles. You think it's fine to lie to the public, as long as it's for what you consider a worthy cause.

        Oh, and check your chronological math: the APS News article is from 1996. Seems a bit strange for you to cite a rebuttal from 1989.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by ankh on Tuesday November 28 2017, @02:34AM (1 child)

    by ankh (754) on Tuesday November 28 2017, @02:34AM (#602290) Homepage
    • (Score: 2) by gottabeme on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:14AM

      by gottabeme (1531) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:14AM (#602792)

      Absolute garbage. He advocated lying to the public. He can't weasel out of that with silly weasel-words like "double-ethical bind," saying that, oh, the poor public can't understand these advanced concepts, so we have to use meeeeeeetaphorrrrs, but that's not lyyyyyying, it's solving an ethical dilemma.

      Pathetic.

      Besides, the proof is in the pudding: "offer[ing] up scary scenarios, mak[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and mak[ing] little mention of any doubts we might have" is exactly what the mass media, IPCC, and other NGOs have been doing for years. It wouldn't matter if Schneider had done an about-face and taken back every word he said--they're doing what he said, and this article is a perfect example of it.

      Filthy leftist liars.