So, when is it OK to lie straight through your teeth?
Rational people might say lying is OK/excusable, if the lie is intended to save your own life or the life of someone else in an emergency situation.
Leftist kooks and the high priests of the man made global warming religion believe it's OK to lie if the lie advances your issue or agenda.
April 5, 2014
Paper: It's OK to lie about climate change
When is it OK to lie about the facts regarding climate change? When it,"enahnces global welfare" say two scientists in a peer-reviewed paper published recently.
A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, is openly providing a “rationale” for global warming proponents to engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.
The paper appears to support or provide a formula for why lying or “information manipulation” is able to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.” The authors use a mathematical formula to study information tactics.
The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups “exaggerate” global warming and then the 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 Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”
The paper conclusions read in part: “This article offers a rationale for the phenomenon of climate change accentuation or exaggeration on the part of the international mainstream media or other pro-environmental organizations.” — ‘We show that the aforementioned exaggeration of climate damage may alleviate the problem of insufﬁcient IEA participation.”
“In fact, our key result—that overpessimism alleviates the underparticipation problem—implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to the society,” the authors conclude on page two, footnote #5.
Reaction to the paper by scientists is highly critical:
Craig Rucker of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow CFACT (Climate Depot’s parent company) noted in an April 4 blog: “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!”
Rucker added: “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.”
CFACT Davi’s Rothbard noted: “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.”
Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), sends along a few other examples of this mindset in an email:
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
In their own words.
The two professors are backtracking furiously, claiming that they've been "misinterpreted." Heh. Short version: "We didn't say what we actually said but the data proves what we didn't exactly say but should have said."
The quotes above show that this mindset has been prevelant in the climate change movement for years. Every once and a while, the mask slips and we see what's really happening behind the curtain. It will be interesting to see how some climate change advocates respond to this paper and whether they have the guts to go against the grain and stand up for truth in science.
Don't hold your breath.