The original article stated that Revkin agreed with Ken Caldeira, Gavin Schmidt, and Steven Schneider that "it's counterproductive [for Michael Mann] to blur lines between observations based on science and value-based opinions." In other words, Mann should stick to objective science instead of "blurring the lines" between science and anti-scientific "value based opinions," but this all-too-true quote was quickly disappeared and replaced with much more obfuscated text:
Updated, 4:54 p.m. |
There’s a troubling section, however, in which Mann creates a flawed dichotomy, hailing a paper by James Hansen and Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University (and others) pressing for deep carbon cuts and criticizing a peer,* Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, for complaining that the paper failed the Stephen Schneider / Gavin Schmidt test for distinguishing between the “is” of science and the “ought” determined by individual feelings about the state of the world and how to shape it...
Climate scientists, like all of us, come in all shapes and sizes and demeanors. I agree with Mann that it’s unwise for scientists to avoid the public debate over drivers of climate risk and options for reducing it. But I agree with Caldeira (and Gavin Schmidt and the departed Steve Schneider) that it’s counterproductive to blur lines between observations based on science and values-based views on solutions.
Postscript, 5:00 p.m. *| At the asterisk above, my characterization of Mann’s positions, as Mann and others have said on Twitter, was indeed too caricatured — although I maintain that his piece could easily be interpreted as very sympathetic to one approach and critical of the other.
Here is my original tweet, sent within 10 minutes of publication of the original article on NYT: