Lying about climate change is acceptable according to academic paper

Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists in a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, take it as a given that both the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the problem of climate change. But unlike the majority of their colleagues in academe - who primly deny that any such problem exists - they go one step further by actively endorsing dishonesty as a way of forcing through (apparently) desirable public policy.
The abstract of their paper reads:
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.
This paper will be excellent news for climate scientists working at institutions like NASA GISS, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Penn State University.
For many years now, they have faced the huge challenge of trying to maintain their academic credibility and generous government grant funding despite increasing evidence that man-made global warming theory is a busted flush and that really it is about time they all found jobs more suited to their talents, such as enquiring whether sir would like a large fries and McFlurry with his Big Mac.
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.
This is not quite the first time that climate scientists have advocated lying in pursuit of the higher cause of greater global regulation, one world government, economic stagnation and higher energy prices.
First to do so was the late Stephen Schneider who famously argued as early as 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."
James "Death Trains" Hansen - formerly Chief Alarmist at NASA GISS - too has made the case that "scary scenarios" can be a good way of concentrating the gullible public's mind in the absence of solid evidence.
But no peer-reviewed scientific paper till now has articulated the case for lying quite so brazenly as this one by
Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao. A Nobel Prize for their sterling service to the cause of Climate Alarmism is surely now a mere formality.

Well they cannot tell the facts from fiction, they are to used to telling lies they would not know the truth if it hit them in the face

I really don't understand why there are so many scientists talking about climate change


the earth has been around for billiions of years and for a long long time was just ice and water.  I have no idea how long ago that the land started to form and the ice and water to recede but it was done over many many millions of years.

The earth has constantly been shifting and moving and breaking up and reforming.  And for many thoustands of years the earth has had floods, droughts, volcanos, earthquakes etc.

The earth will continue to do it's own thing imo and no matter how many ''climate change'' strategies and policies are made, they will never stop the earth doing precisely what it wants to do

Am I just a simpleton or is there more to climate change than I thought,,,,,can we stop it??

I agree with what you say the earth has and will continue to have climate change with or without us, I don't believe we can do anything about it except try to find ways to eleviate the problems it is going to bring us, spending money to try and stop the unstoppable is arrogant and useless, that said I think human action has contributed to the problem and will continue to do so if we keep living as we do and its not only the rich carbon producing countries that are contributing, many developing countries have farming methods that don't help the environment, tapping underground cisterns of water is only a short term solution, these have taken centuries to fill and if drought happens they won't refill at least not for some time. We are still looking at short term solutions, what we need to do is get a grip of the population or at least the immediate future population, each country otr region should only have the population it can take care of in an emergency, even during the second world war we couldn't take care of 43 million how would we manage with our current 60 million? I'm not advocating culling of the human race although I think mother nature is seriously thinking about it. Let's make every child a wanted child, an educated child, and eventually a productive child in whatever occupation in harmony with nature and the planet, I don't think allowing the population to increase as it is and try to use science to force the planet to produce more and more and put nothing or very little back is going to be of any help at all, I suppose eventually we'll be able to go off and find another planet to over colonize and ruin that as well.

gelico wrote:I really don't understand why there are so many scientists talking about climate change


the earth has been around for billiions of years and for a long long time was just ice and water.  I have no idea how long ago that the land started to form and the ice and water to recede but it was done over many many millions of years.

The earth has constantly been shifting and moving and breaking up and reforming.  And for many thoustands of years the earth has had floods, droughts, volcanos, earthquakes etc.

The earth will continue to do it's own thing imo and no matter how many ''climate change'' strategies and policies are made, they will never stop the earth doing precisely what it wants to do

Am I just a simpleton or is there more to climate change than I thought,,,,,can we stop it??

Because put simply with have a limited time of the planet being able to support life and thus helping prevent that time happening sooner you do all you can to help make an environment safer for all and everyone is the future.
People who excuse its going to happen anyway and to just ignore the fact by using such poor industrial methods we can massively accelerate the planet becoming uninhabitable, which is absurd. We no doubt will look to colonise elsewhere in the universe in the future when we develop the technology, which will no doubt take sometime. Already warming is having a massive affect on are weather, of which there is no denying we are increasing and making worse the problem with are pollutants. Its no good saying other areas of the world have poor methods so we should continue, we need to get everyone on board protecting our planet.
Nobody has written a single paper refuting climate change which shows the massive affect humans have had.


The growing population is a problem and in answer to Flix, nature does have a way of culling populations, pandemics, of which we are long overdue one, but that is not the answer to the problem, and again the world united needs to help solve this problem. The point is which should not be increasing the process that makes our planet untenable, which need to be doing the opposite and who is to know what can be developed in the future that can help fix our environment, far fetched maybe, but science has proven many things are possible

Growing population is one thing, pollution is another, climate change science has been shown to be at best, over exaggeratedand at worst, complete lies!



The global temperature has not changed in nearly 20 years!

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good bit of money making bullshit...!

mattiducatti wrote:Growing population is one thing, pollution is another, climate change science has been shown to be at best, over exaggeratedand at worst, complete lies!



The global temperature has not changed in nearly 20 years!

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good bit of money making bullshit...!

Spot on matti

Population growth one thing.......protecting thr earths resources and trying to find alternatives another....

Climate chamge....so naton states can control their populus and tax them to fuck is something else altogether and one lefty fuckwit admitted its about redistribution

The Romans were growing grapes north of Chester back in the day.... 

Climate change is just another religion for those who need to be led like ickle lambs...

gelico wrote:I really don't understand why there are so many scientists talking about climate change


the earth has been around for billiions of years and for a long long time was just ice and water.  I have no idea how long ago that the land started to form and the ice and water to recede but it was done over many many millions of years.

The earth has constantly been shifting and moving and breaking up and reforming.  And for many thoustands of years the earth has had floods, droughts, volcanos, earthquakes etc.

The earth will continue to do it's own thing imo and no matter how many ''climate change'' strategies and policies are made, they will never stop the earth doing precisely what it wants to do

Am I just a simpleton or is there more to climate change than I thought,,,,,can we stop it??

climate change is predominantly about wealth redistribution, I.e. giving our wealth to the developing country's

Flix wrote:I agree with what you say the earth has and will continue to have climate change with or without us, I don't believe we can do anything about it except try to find ways to eleviate the problems it is going to bring us, spending money to try and stop the unstoppable is arrogant and useless, that said I think human action has contributed to the problem and will continue to do so if we keep living as we do and its not only the rich carbon producing countries that are contributing, many developing countries have farming methods that don't help the environment, tapping underground cisterns of water is only a short term solution, these have taken centuries to fill and if drought happens they won't refill at least not for some time. We are still looking at short term solutions, what we need to do is get a grip of the population or at least the immediate future population, each country otr region should only have the population it can take care of in an emergency, even during the second world war we couldn't take care of 43 million how would we manage with our current 60 million? I'm not advocating culling of the human race although I think mother nature is seriously thinking about it. Let's make every child a wanted child, an educated child, and eventually a productive child in whatever occupation in harmony with nature and the planet, I don't think allowing the population to increase as it is and try to use science to force the planet to produce more and more and put nothing or very little back is going to be of any help at all, I suppose eventually we'll be able to go off and find another planet to over colonize and ruin that as well.

actually flix, that is precisely what is needed if these scientists are serious about man made climate change.
Its the man made bit that is nonsense though

Well you are correct of course but it is very politically incorrect idea, we happily cull ever other species and tend to forget humans are still only animals basically and pretty savage ones at that when the stuff hits the fan. If we did decide to do it who would be chosen, how would we choose- the old (infirm or well) and the sick first? Who then - criminals? Who then?

Flix wrote:Well you are correct of course but it is very politically incorrect idea, we happily cull ever other species and tend to forget humans are still only animals basically and pretty savage ones at that when the stuff hits the fan. If we did decide to do it who would be chosen, how would we choose- the old (infirm or well) and the sick first? Who then - criminals? Who then?

well labour would no doubt kill the rich, the providers, the producers and leave us will a world full of sick, disabled and workshy.


but your list would do for starters.


the best solution would be to invent suspended animation and only live one day in 7 say.

Flap Gallagher wrote:
well labour would no doubt kill the rich, the providers, the producers and leave us will a world full of sick, disabled and workshy.


but your list would do for starters.


the best solution would be to invent suspended animation and only live one day in 7 say.

Well I don't think Labour would kill the rich, not before they've been milked. And I think you're reaching  a tad into the realm of far fetchedness, which I guess it's to be accepted, as you wish to present yourself as far to the right of RWhinge as humanly possible. Ffs even Tarquin and the thickcunt are now snivelling to nazis just to get a look in.

You should be wary of going too far to the right, they do have a nasty habit of going over the edge, so to speak!

scrat wrote:

Flap Gallagher wrote:
well labour would no doubt kill the rich, the providers, the producers and leave us will a world full of sick, disabled and workshy.


but your list would do for starters.


the best solution would be to invent suspended animation and only live one day in 7 say.

Well I don't think Labour would kill the rich, not before they've been milked. And I think you're reaching  a tad into the realm of far fetchedness, which I guess it's to be accepted, as you wish to present yourself as far to the right of RWhinge as humanly possible. Ffs even Tarquin and the thickcunt are now snivelling to nazis just to get a look in.

You should be wary of going too far to the right, they do have a nasty habit of going over the edge, so to speak!

scrat you probably think karl Marx was a dangerous right winger

Shoot everyone who says:  Awesome,  Innit, Whatever, or mentions an Ism an Ist or a Phobe  on all odd numbered days, and twice on Sundays. Job done.

Is there a Scrat handbook of handy translations because more than half the time I have no idea what (s)he's on about?

Flix wrote:Is there a Scrat handbook of handy translations because more than half the time I have no idea what (s)he's on about?

Hi Flix,
Prof. Brubaker , who is currently studying Dead Languages at Unseen Uni. confesses he is somewhat flummoxed by the language known as Scrattish,  but he advises any amateur who delves into it to get thoroughly  pissed beforehand.

 

Right, I'll try that.

wyatt1 wrote:Shoot everyone who says:  Awesome,  Innit, Whatever, or mentions an Ism an Ist or a Phobe  on all odd numbered days, and twice on Sundays. Job done.

PS:

Anyone who is NOT a California USA native but insists on using the term "DUDE" should be shot twice EVERY day regardless of odd or even dates and hanged drawn and quartered every Sunday. I consider that to be rather lenient for them.     

I remain enough of an old cynic to wonder whether the sheer number of "climate change" related lucrative jobs, well paid quango sinecures, academic reputations that might otherwise be open to serious scrutiny and question, generous state funding for university departments and professorial chairs, multi-million pound business opportunities and exciting new taxes might not all be something to do with the vilification and ruination of the sceptic tendency.

People keep on and on about man made climate change which is pretty arrogant all things considered we may not be helping or even acelerating the process but to think we can stop it it by various green measures and taxing people to hell and back is not only arrogant but stupid in the extreme, we need to stop spending so much on trying to stop an express train with a red and white barrier or should that be a green and white barrier, get the sandals off and the boots/wellies on and start trying to put measures in place to try and alleviate the worst effects of climate change. I'm sure money can still be made by politicians and others in the right places even in that situation.

wyatt1 wrote:Shoot everyone who says:  Awesome,  Innit, Whatever, or mentions an Ism an Ist or a Phobe  on all odd numbered days, and twice on Sundays. Job done.

there wouldn't be a left winger left in the world

Flap Gallagher wrote:
there wouldn't be a left winger left in the world

I is truly brilliant !!!! (as is you     mod mod grovel grovel)    

It never rains in Manchester ,we are famous for our deserts .

ALLAKAKA wrote:It never rains in Manchester ,we are famous for our deserts .

At the risk of being hunted down by offended Mancunians and suffering testiclectomy with a blunt knife, would that desert be cultural or Gobby?

(Alright, think about it....I know it's a bit obscurely subtle).