Editing Stephen Schneider (scientist) (section)

==Media contributions==
Schneider was a frequent contributor to commercial and noncommercial print and broadcast media on climate and environmental issues, e.g., ''[[Nova (American TV series)|Nova]]'', ''Planet Earth'', ''[[Nightline]]'', ''Today Show'', ''[[The Tonight Show]]'', [[Bill Maher]]'s shows, ''[[Good Morning America]]'', ''[[Dateline]]'', [[The Discovery Channel]], as well as appearances on the [[British Broadcasting Corporation|British]], [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|Canadian]] and [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]s.<ref>Santer, B. and Ehrlich, P. 2014. [http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/schneider-stephen.pdf ''Stephen Schneider: a biographical essay'']. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.</ref>

Schneider commented about the frustrations and difficulties involved with assessing and communicating scientific ideas. In a January 2002 ''[[Scientific American]]'' article, he wrote:
{{quote|''I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming.''<ref>{{cite journal |author=Schneider SH |title=Misleading Math about the Earth: Science defends itself against ''The Skeptical Environmentalist'' |journal=Sci. Am. |date=January 2002 |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0102-61 |url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000}}</ref>}}

In 1989, Schneider addressed the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews. This citation sometimes was used by his critics to accuse him of supporting misuse of science for political goals:

{{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 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.'' (Quoted in ''Discover'', pp. 45–48, October 1989.) }}

For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also [[American Physical Society]], ''APS News'' August/September 1996.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Schneider S. H. |title=Don't Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial |journal=APS News |publisher=[[American Physical Society]] |date=August–September 1996 |url= http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm}}</ref>