Dishonest global warming reports

Dishonest global warming reports are good, as long as they promote certain agenda, paper says


(NaturalNews) According to a pair of economists who have recently published a peer-reviewed paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, lying about climate change in order to advance an extremist environmental agenda is a great idea.

As reported by Breitbart News, the authors -- Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao -- accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues -- who flatly deny that any such problem exists -- they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.

The abstract of their paper notes:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

Why can't the truth be enough?

The paper should be good news for climate scientists who work at places like the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and Penn State University; for years now, those institutions have strived to balance academic integrity with generous government grant funding in the face of increasingly obvious evidence that man-made global warming is just a hoax and that, really, they should probably be forced to find legitimate work, instead of continuing to live off taxpayer money.

"Now, thanks to the inspired sophistry of their new friends Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao their various data manipulation, decline-hiding, FOI-breaching, scientific-method abusing shenanigans have been made to seem not evil or wrong but actively desirable for the good of mankind," wrote James Delingpole at Breitbart News.

Reaction to the paper has been sharp and critical.

"What will shock you is that two professors not only candidly admit it, but published a paper in a peer reviewed journal touting the beneficial effects of lying for pushing nations into a UN climate treaty in Paris next year!" wrote Craig Rucker of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) in an April 4 blog post. "The authors not only believe that their dubious ends justify their shady means, they institutionalize 'information manipulation' as a tactic, host panels about it at climate conferences and publish it in journals. They're shameless."

David Rothbard, also of CFACT, added: "Global warming skeptics have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate change. Now comes a new paper from two economists in Singapore and Hong Kong that actually advocates exaggerating global warming fears to get countries on board international environmental agreements."

History of lying about global warming/climate change

Kevin Glass, writing at Townhall.com, says the paper claims that the supposed urgency of climate change makes it alright to lie to and deceive the public about the alleged consequences of global warming. While the economists don't actually use the word "lying," they nonetheless call for "informational manipulation and exaggeration," indicating that they believe the ends of intellectual dishonesty justify the means of climate-related policy changes.

This is not the first time that climate scientists have advocated lying as a means of pursuing the higher cause of additional global regulations, one-world government, economic stagnation and much higher energy prices.

The late Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider wrote in 1989: "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' which 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."


http://www.naturalnews.com/044856_global_warming_dishonest_science_climate_myths.html