Noble cause corruption gone wild. People tend to think of scientists as being unbiased, in climate science, apparently if you aren’t biased, you aren’t doing useful work.
From CFACT: A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, is openly advocating that global warming proponents engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.
The paper appears to openly advocate “information manipulation” to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.”
The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups “exaggerate” global warming and then offer their paper to “provide a rationale for this tendency” to exaggerate for the good of the cause.
The paper was published on February 24, 2014.
The author’s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the “news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”
“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreement) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”
The authors of the paper, Fuhai Hong is an assistant professor in the Division of Economics, Nanyang Technological University. Xiaojian Zhao is an assistant professor in the Department of Economics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
The complete Abstract of the paper is reproduced below:
###
The paper:
Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements
+ Author Affiliations
- Correspondence may be sent to: fhhong@ntu.edu.sg.
-
The authors thank Larry Karp, Madhu Khanna, Jinhua Zhao, two anonymous referees, and participants in the Conference on Global Environmental Challenges: the Role of China for their helpful comments.
Abstract
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.
Wow. Next time someone throws the phrase “peer reviewed literature” at me, I will point to this one.
Whatever happened to personal integrity?
Uh, missing an apostrophe in the headline…
Are they advocating it or just saying ‘hey man, sh*t happens’
Unbelievable!
China will now dramatically reduce its CO2 emissions.
Let’s parse this. A paper from China (which will never, ever restrict its CO2 output) says that it is good to manipulate the media (that is the media outside of China) to “[induce] more countries to participate in an IEA” which will cripple the industries of those countries leaving China untouched and unrivaled. So, how much is the chinese equivalent of the KGB paying them?
Another making of a silk purse into a sow’s ear…no…wait….
manipulation is so common , entrenched, accepted and expected in climate science it has its own study? maybe it should become a subject with its own faculty that rates climate papers on a beerosphere-o-meter?
Fixed! Thank you.
“Its ok to lie to people for their own good.” Typical left wingnut rationalization.
These CAGW devotees have made criminal behavior a science
One of the best ways for a science to lose public credibility is to make a lot of wild predictions which then don’t bear out. This is what is happening with climatology.
And their solution? Even more apocalyptic predictions.
Drinking for sobriety, I call it.
lets face it no western university would have funded this kind of ‘shoot yourself in the head’ research. This paper could have been written 10 years ago
Chinese: possible live grenade for the warmist camp disguised as support. A “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him” , but in reverse.
DELETED – Like so forget it, man. ~ Evan
At what point does exaggeration become lying?
Liberals have long held that a lie told to further their cause is justified. The surprise is that anyone would actually come out an say it so clearly.
Sadly, I stopped trusting “scientists” a long time ago. They are just politicians in white lab coats. Trust no long has any place in our polarized society. Reagan said “trust but verify”. Now it is more appropriate to doubt everything until you have verified it yourself.
I’d love to see their references.
Such stupidity – the first principle of propaganda is never admit that it is propaganda.
The end justifies the means.
It is all right to lie and exaggerate to achieve your goal.
Well, such is climate science, which practices the same methodology as all the -ism leaders of the last century. In other words, it’s OK for the black hatted guys to do stuff, which is definitely not allowed for the good guys.
Politics has always involved using extremes to motivate people. Emphasize the worst case scenario for a problem (real or imagined), play-up the best case scenario for your solution and downplay the criticism of detractors.
This paper further reinforces the observation that climate change activists aren’t scientists.
Following the link, I also get a CFACT survey on global warming. Despite only five questions and three answer options per question it seems quite good.
It is well that such a paper publicly says what many privately believe.Such extremism will be the undoing of the movement. Staggering that it was published in such a journal. What rot.
They’re saying that exaggeration happens, and they’re not judging whether it is wrong, but the distorted information can increase participation in environmental agreements, and that end result is always good. They seem to be assuming that environmental agreements always have good results for the general welfare, and anything which enhances the general welfare is good. (Are “general welfare” and “enhance” defined?)
This from the little despots in training in leadership positions descended from despot Mao and friends. Not surprising. Anything to gain and maintain control over a populace is acceptable.
The “peer” reviewers must, by definition, share similar political views.