"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."
Anyone who writes a piece that leaves out the final sentence of this quote is not a scholar; they are a propagandist, because they are attempting to twist its meaning.
The PNAS article was accurate but misguided. It accomplished nothing but printing what everyone already knew.
You can’t twist meaning any more than “...offer[ing] up scary scenarios, make[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and make[ing] little mention of any doubts you might have” in order to convince your audience of your proposition. It matters not to me what he “feels” about being “effective” or being “honest” or being both. How about a true report of the evidence he has?
The only bit of information the omitted sentence gives is that I don’t know how much or about what he lied.