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.
Thru this published paper, we have acheved total corruption of a scientific discipline. I wonder if these two brainless authors realize the contradiction implicit in their argument : Claim that something not dangerous is dangerous, to induce folks to take actions to prevent this (non-dangerous) something.
@ur momisugly Dire Wolf at 8:30 am
EXACTLY! And some will be stupid enough to comply…
“Peer reviewed paper says it’s OK to manipulate data, exaggerate climate claims”
It is good to see the climate “scientists” admit they have been doing this since they have been doing it for at least 30 years. It is good for them to tell us that their “science” is all fiction. We knew it all along, but it is damn nice to get peer-reviewed conformation on that issue.
Modern “climate science” is pure baloney.
They’re just following the now fashionable Post Modern Scientific Method that’s become pervasive, esp in America. In order for the ersatz religion of ‘environmentalism’ and climatchondria to spread far and wide like the plagues of mentally impaired rationalizing that they are, anything goes. Possibly, real scientists who believe in the scientific method, the honest ones who leave advocacy, politics and dogma out of their work will slowly turn the tide back.
You have misread the paper, or have not read it. By “rationale” they mean a rational explanation for the observed phenomena, not a moral justification for the behavior. The paper goes on to say “However, because people update their beliefs using the Bayesian rule, such information manipulation has a negative externality on the other state when climate damage is really huge, in which case the aforementioned information provider will not be sufficiently trusted even if it indicates the true state.” In other words, crying wolf leads to greater skepticism.
The paper also makes serious claims about errors in Al Gore’s film and an earlier IPCC report.
Houses built on sand.
I have seen this parasitic mendacity grow and flourish on the wealth created by our ancestors in my lifetime but doubt it will last: it is simply the fashion of the times.
Who said ‘two vast and trunkless legs of stone..’
It is sad to live out my remaining days in such a gloomy fin de siecle air amongst the politicos, the literatie, the commentariat and all the rest. Who do not understand how bright the future is.
And that they will be swept away by the advance of technology., even China could not stop that despite all its attempts to do so,
The age of the mandarins is almost over for all that they do not understand it.
It will be a brave new world. Of that I am certain.
Kindest Regards
“A type I error, also known as an error of the first kind, occurs when the null hypothesis (H0) is true, but is rejected. It is asserting something that is absent, a false hit. A type I error may be compared with a so-called false positive (a result that indicates that a given condition is present when it actually is not present) in tests where a single condition is tested for. Type I errors are philosophically a focus of skepticism and Occam’s razor. A Type I error occurs when we believe a falsehood.[4] In terms of folk tales, an investigator may be “crying wolf” without a wolf in sight (raising a false alarm) (H0: no wolf).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive#Type_I_error
Kind of reminds of this:
“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.” – Stephen Schneider
In both cases, it is concluded that being effective can only be achieved by being dishonest. Of course, us “regular” folks at whom all these messages are being directed are obviously misinterpreting these people.
This is yet another test of the true believers. Anyone that so much as flinches in the face of the absurdity tests is not a true believer, right Richard Tol? I’m sure Pol Pot had his tests also.
Harkens back to [Maurice] Strong’s intent for the IPCC and the plan set out in “The First Global Revolution,” in which global warming was seen as “a new enemy to unite nations” whether it be “real or imagined,” it is “suitable for the purpose.” It only underscores the Progressive Collectivism foundation of the movement and its adoption of the Alinsky tactics of “the end justifies the means.”
The authors reside in the PRC,correct? So does Strong.
If by global welfare you mean a poverty stricken globe addicted to dependency programs doled out by an unaccountable polical/wealthy elite, then yes this crap will promote global welfare.
Economists are not scientists…
I always thought that data manipulation and exaggeration were central to climate “science”.
It uses blind faith and zealotry, just like other religions.
“openly advocating that global warming proponents engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.”
We’ve become a nation of sharks, just swimming around looking for a chance to take a bite out of the next guy.
Every embezzler, con-artist, and ponzi scheme promoter rationalizes their crimes the in a similar way.
Peter Gleick did it, and has been widely praised by true believers.
AGW social dysfunction is truly corrosive on morals, ethics, character and honesty.
Yes, but what if the Agreement then is based on “information manipulation,” i.e. disinformation or manipulated science?
Forgive me for stating the obvious: if it’s propaganda, it’s not science.
What are these guys? Maoists?
Hang on a moment, I hate it when the AGW crowd says something about a paper that the paper itself doesnt actually say. We also wouldn’t to be guilty of “exaggerating” the claims in this paper would we?
The “article” (as opposed to a study) as represented above does NOT say anything about scientists manipulating data or using corrupt methods in scientific studies. It speaks to how the MEDIA and environmental groups manipulate and exaggerate “the damage done by climate change” to further their agendas.
Those are two very different things and I think we on the sceptical side of things need to be just as careful with how accurately we reflect the conclusions of papers we dont agree with as we are the ones we do.
“The more things change, the more they remain… insane.”-Michael Fry and T. Lewis
Alarmists have been doing this for some time. That’s why they have no credibility.
What would you expect from Chinese Communists? This is why the “greens” should be considered “watermelons”.
Would it be okay for skeptics to exaggerate the negative effects of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere? Or does it only go one way?
LOL, me too.
We can play the guess game… Which papers do you thick they use as reference?
The hockey stick one can be one, the Steig Arctantica temps reconstruction another one…
So, from peer review of replicable results, we go to grey and bleeding edge literature, to making !#$% up, all in one generation.
Seems it was just yesterday when warmists tried to walk back and parse Stephen Schneider’s statement about manipulating data.
One way of measuring how biased you are is to ask yourself: what if the other side did this, would I accept it?
Would a warmist allow an Exxon executive with an MBA author a climate study? Would a warmist allow a Koch to make stuff up to downplay warming?
Indeed…
‘In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda.’
“In The Power of Nightmares, documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis opines that “Strauss believed it was for politicians to assert powerful and inspiring myths that everyone could believe in. They might not be true, but they were necessary illusions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
ie participating in ‘necessary illusions’ is a noble duty
Or we can exaggerate the positive effects of increasing CO2. E.g. If CO2 levels are doubled, crops will grow 25% more.
… oh, wait, that actually happens.