APS and the Global Warming Scam


Recommended Posts

Here's a peer-reviewed paper on climate change:

Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

by Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

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.

I caught this on a Google search and landed at a conservative climate change watchdog site:

Peer reviewed paper: It’s OK to lie about climate

by Craig Rucker

April 4, 2014

CFACT

From the article:

You won't find it shocking to learn that suppressing inconvenient facts, lying about climate science and exaggerating tales about natural weather are deliberate strategies for global warming campaigners.

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!

The title of their study?

“Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements.”

. . .

Take a look at this advance draft from CFACT President David Rothbard for one of our upcoming Just the Facts radio broadcasts:

. . .

"According to Kevin Glass of Townhall.com, the paper claims that the urgency of climate change makes it OK to deceive the public about the projected consequences of global warming. They don't actually use the word “lying,” but by calling for “informational manipulation and exaggeration,” they certainly think the ends justify these very questionable and over-heated means.”

Love those peer-reviewed standards of excellence when it comes to climate change...

Michael

Unfortunately, the media has a way of spinning things in a way that makes people seem to say something they never meant. The authors themselves came out in an email to Jayson Lusk:

1. Our paper consists of two parts of messages, one positive (why there is media bias), while the other normative (what is the outcome of media bias). For the first part, media bias emerges as the unique perfect Bayesian equilibrium in our model. This provides an explanation on the phenomenon we observe from reality. Our abstract thus states that "This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement model with asymmetric information." By the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, rationale means "the reasons and principles on which a decision, plan, belief etc is based." Our "rationale" is essentially an explanation on why the media has incentives to accentuate or even exaggerate climate damage. It belongs to the approach of positive economics and is value neutral, up to this point.

2. Then we do have a "normative" analysis on the media bias. The main difficulty of the climate problem is that it is a global public problem and we lack an international government to regulate it; the strong free riding incentives lead to a serious under-participation in an IEA. We show that the media bias may have an ex post instrumental value as the over-pessimism from media bias may alleviate the under-participation problem to some extent. (In this sense, we are close to Dessi's (2008, AER) theory of cultural transmission and collective memory.) Meanwhile, we also address the issue of trust/credibility as people have Bayesian updating of beliefs in our perfect Bayesian equilibrium. We show that, ex ante (when there is uncertainty on the state of nature), the media bias could be beneficial or detrimental, due to the issue of credibility; as a result, the welfare implication is ambiguous.

And as usual, what the authors actually said is far more mundane and boring. Basically, they're saying that the media and politicians *cough* Al Gore *cough* have a tendency to exaggerate the dangers of AGW.

They go on to say that, while an exaggerated danger might increase overall participation by countries in an IEA, ultimately, because of credibility issues, lying about the dangers of AGW can screw you over.

Essentially, it's the story of the boy who cried wolf in mathematical form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 989
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have no idea  who started the notion that global warming is a hoax.    Tyndall showed that CO2 retards the out-radiation in the IR bands back in 1880.  So we get a blanket effect. CO2 does not

Technically Lindzen is correct.  But blanket is a good analogy.  Blankets keep your body from losing heat quickly on a cold night.  The CO2, NH4 and H2O(g)  slow down the rate at which IR energy is ra

I am glad you posted that.  I was going to post Palmer's lecture.  it is excellent and it deals quite well the difficulties in making decent models of climate.  His discourse on the Navier Stokes equa

What I'm trying to get at is, doesn't this funding of AGW-skeptics by Cronies like Exxon Mobil and other to discredit AGW, and censorship of climate scientists by the government (specifically the Bush administration) kind of call into question the credibility of AGW skepticism? (just as you claimed that government funding of climate scientists calls into question their credibility).

You're starting to glimpse the issue from your fog.

The government funds climate research.

The government funds climate skepticism. (What do you think a crony is?)

When you say one discredits the other, where are you?

Not much, but a start.

Michael

You seem to have changed your stance on this.

At first, I got the impression that you were saying that the government was funding climate research in order to corrupt it and promote a made-up theory of AGW, (presumably, because they want to destroy industry)

Now, are you saying that they're distorting both sides of the argument in order to confuse the public?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, what they said is actually the opposite of what they said (throw in a lot of technical jargon).

That's been Naomi's consistent arguments for several issues, including Bengtsson. Even his own words did not count.

Heh.

I really like the quote from the Chinese dudes above: "The main difficulty of the climate problem is that it is a global public problem and we lack an international government to regulate it..."

True believers are so precious...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, are you saying that they're distorting both sides of the argument in order to confuse the public?

That has always been my message.

Your true believer mission frame to enlighten the heathen has kept you from seeing it.

I want the government out of this thing.

And for the record, "they're distorting," means government funded scientists regardless of which side it is.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, what they said is actually the opposite of what they said (throw in a lot of technical jargon).

That's been Naomi's consistent arguments for several issues, including Bengtsson. Even his own words did not count.

Heh.

I really like the quote from the Chinese dudes above: "The main difficulty of the climate problem is that it is a global public problem and we lack an international government to regulate it..."

True believers are so precious...

:smile:

Michael

What they actually said is the opposite of what the biased article you linked to said that they said.

Now, are you saying that they're distorting both sides of the argument in order to confuse the public?

That has always been my message.

Your true believer mission frame to enlighten the heathen has kept you from seeing it.

I want the government out of this thing.

And for the record, "they're distorting," means government funded scientists regardless of which side it is.

Michael

What about when Exxon Mobil and other private groups and individuals fund scientists and think-tanks with the goal of having them discredit AGW. Is that not biased research?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about when Exxon Mobil and other private groups and individuals fund scientists and think-tanks with the goal of having them discredit AGW. Is that not biased research?

Naomi,

Look into the activities of all these groups and you will find government money, gobs and gobs of government money.

I thought I said that (using other words) and we were making progress.

:smile:

The "us against them" you buy into is a false dichotomy. I am not on one side or the other. I am against both. I just come down hard on the arguments of anyone who promotes big government as the cure against "them."

The entire science debate on climate change stinks from corruption.

You are not a member of the elite enlightened like you think you are. You are merely a tool--a literal true-believer tool who is duped that they use. You are totally expendable to them, too. Don't believe me? Start talking about less government and really mean it. You will get the shock of your life.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a piece of advice, and I think, good advice too. The more you are convinced a theory is true, there harder you should try to falsify it by empirical means. That is the only action one can take against observer bias.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about when Exxon Mobil and other private groups and individuals fund scientists and think-tanks with the goal of having them discredit AGW. Is that not biased research?

Naomi,

Look into the activities of all these groups and you will find government money, gobs and gobs of government money.

I thought I said that (using other words) and we were making progress.

Ummm... no? No I don't really think you will, and if you think otherwise, where is your evidence?

Additionally, I don't think you really answered my question. If a private group funds scientists to create research that supports a certain conclusion, is that or is that not biased research?

:smile:

The "us against them" you buy into is a false dichotomy. I am not on one side or the other. I am against both. I just come down hard on the arguments of anyone who promotes big government as the cure against "them."

The entire science debate on climate change stinks from corruption.

You are not a member of the elite enlightened like you think you are. You are merely a tool--a literal true-believer tool who is duped that they use. You are totally expendable to them, too. Don't believe me? Start talking about less government and really mean it. You will get the shock of your life.

Michael

Either AGW is true, or it is not. Which do you believe and why? You can't say neither as reality is an absolute and does not allow anybody the luxury of remaining neutral with respect to the facts.

It's fine if you are against big government and its proponents. But I don't think that arguing against AGW simply because some big government types happen to believe it is true is a rational position. If a communist came on TV and said "Gravity exists, therefore communism", I would not argue that gravity doesn't exist. It's far more likely that his argument or his other premises are flawed. Whether or not gravity exists can only be settled by empirical investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a piece of advice, and I think, good advice too. The more you are convinced a theory is true, there harder you should try to falsify it by empirical means. That is the only action one can take against observer bias.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The models used in climatology have been subjected to many empirical tests and all the data we have supports them (your unfounded claims of unfalsifiability notwithstanding).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a good thing that peer-reviewed journals have scientific standards and reject papers which fail to meet those standards.

I think it would be a good thing, and still is in some areas, but that it's never a good thing to presume about an article that appears in any source, and that you recite the "peer review" catechism like a religionist.

Ellen

Actually, I would say that it often is a good thing to presume that a non-peer-reviewed "scientific" article is bullshit, seeing as how that is what pretty much all of them are.

"87% of Statistics Are Made Up on the Spot," the tongue-in-cheek title of an article by Tim Ball.

Peer-reviewed research represents the best evidence, theories, and arguments that humanity has in any given field. The problem with religionists is not that they extol the virtues of peer-review, but that they take things on faith rather than evidence.

You have the catechism down well.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a piece of advice, and I think, good advice too. The more you are convinced a theory is true, there harder you should try to falsify it by empirical means. That is the only action one can take against observer bias.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The models used in climatology have been subjected to many empirical tests and all the data we have supports them (your unfounded claims of unfalsifiability notwithstanding).

They've been subjected to a great deal of fiddling and retroactive adjusting when the predictions they make, as always, don't pan out.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a piece of advice, and I think, good advice too. The more you are convinced a theory is true, there harder you should try to falsify it by empirical means. That is the only action one can take against observer bias.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The models used in climatology have been subjected to many empirical tests and all the data we have supports them (your unfounded claims of unfalsifiability notwithstanding).

They've been subjected to a great deal of fiddling and retroactive adjusting when the predictions they make, as always, don't pan out.

Ellen

You're going around in circles at this point.

Back in this post: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14217&page=4#entry208211

I asked you to back up your claims that the models have been retroactively manipulated to fit the data after the fact, and you never followed through. Why? Because you have no such proof and you know it.

(And let's not forget that the models' predictions actually HAVE panned out.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

(And let's not forget that the models' predictions actually HAVE panned out.)

It's impossible to forget something which wasn't ever in one's thoughts.

Ellen

And you once again fail to back up anything you say with any sort of evidence whatsoever. (and I'm supposedly the religious fanatic...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a piece of advice, and I think, good advice too. The more you are convinced a theory is true, there harder you should try to falsify it by empirical means. That is the only action one can take against observer bias.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The models used in climatology have been subjected to many empirical tests and all the data we have supports them (your unfounded claims of unfalsifiability notwithstanding).

They've been subjected to a great deal of fiddling and retroactive adjusting when the predictions they make, as always, don't pan out.

Ellen

You're going around in circles at this point.

Back in this post: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14217&page=4#entry208211

I asked you to back up your claims that the models have been retroactively manipulated to fit the data after the fact, and you never followed through. Why? Because you have no such proof and you know it.

(And let's not forget that the models' predictions actually HAVE panned out.)

The famouse "hockey stick" minimizes global warm period that preceded "the little ice Age" (ca 1300 - 1750). We have plenty of evidence both physical and historical of this warm period. Grapes were grown in England and the French attempted to pass laws and tariffs to discourage the import of grapes from England. The tree ring evidence shows a warm period whose (inferred) temperature levels were lower than the levels shown in the Hockey Stick. This could have been done to bias the statistics to show a greater temperature growth post 1750 than actually occurred. The fact that the models can be so manipulated is a troubling matter. Models with too many parameters can be adjusted to produced biased results.

The Club of Rome used to play such tricks with the statistics to proved that by the year 2000 the world would be out of oil and living in squalor.

The moral: beware of environmentalist groups who have an ax or a hockey stick to grind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The famouse "hockey stick" minimizes global warm period that preceded "the little ice Age" (ca 1300 - 1750). We have plenty of evidence both physical and historical of this warm period. Grapes were grown in England and the French attempted to pass laws and tariffs to discourage the import of grapes from England. The tree ring evidence shows a warm period whose (inferred) temperature levels were lower than the levels shown in the Hockey Stick. This could have been done to bias the statistics to show a greater temperature growth post 1750 than actually occurred. The fact that the models can be so manipulated is a troubling matter. Models with too many parameters can be adjusted to produced biased results.

The Club of Rome used to play such tricks with the statistics to proved that by the year 2000 the world would be out of oil and living in squalor.

The moral: beware of environmentalist groups who have an ax or a hockey stick to grind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, finally. At least we have something here.

Unfortunately, it is misleading. "The little Ice Age" was not a global phenomenon, and it was mainly restricted to Western Europe and some of the eastern parts of North America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The famouse "hockey stick" minimizes global warm period that preceded "the little ice Age" (ca 1300 - 1750). We have plenty of evidence both physical and historical of this warm period. Grapes were grown in England and the French attempted to pass laws and tariffs to discourage the import of grapes from England. The tree ring evidence shows a warm period whose (inferred) temperature levels were lower than the levels shown in the Hockey Stick. This could have been done to bias the statistics to show a greater temperature growth post 1750 than actually occurred. The fact that the models can be so manipulated is a troubling matter. Models with too many parameters can be adjusted to produced biased results.

The Club of Rome used to play such tricks with the statistics to proved that by the year 2000 the world would be out of oil and living in squalor.

The moral: beware of environmentalist groups who have an ax or a hockey stick to grind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, finally. At least we have something here.

Unfortunately, it is misleading. "The little Ice Age" was not a global phenomenon, and it was mainly restricted to Western Europe and some of the eastern parts of North America.

The little ice age was a freezing era in Europe and Norther Asia, probably due to the shut down of the Atlantic Halocline Conveyor. In short the Gulf Stream cease to warm up England, Northern Europe, the Scandinavian countries and the portions of Russia west of the Urals. The effects of this climate change is well supported historically. The Thames froze in winter and the Londoners had lots of fun holding winter fares on the frozen ice of the Thames. In Holland the canals froze solid in the winter. Time for Hans Brinker to break out the Silver Skates. The tree ring evidences show closer packing of the annual rings and some to the trees used to make violins were denser because of the freezing (the rings grew closer together). That is where Stadivarious got his wood to make such excellent instruments.

See this article for why Europe froze during the Little Ice Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

The last great idea age started about 2.1 million ybp and ended perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 ybp. We have been living in a rather comfortable inter glacial period since. This is also the time when agriculture originated and civilization flourished. We have inherited the notion that the climate of this inter glacial is "normal". Not so. Earth has frozen its arse off much more frequently than it has warmed up during the last 5 million years or so. The next Big Climate Shift will probably be to a very cool climate era.

It may be the case that our effluence of CO2 and other green house gases has delayed the return of the next Ice Age somewhat, that that probably will not last. Ironically, if we reduce our carbon foot print we may hasten the return of the next Ice Age. We are long overdue for it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That last global freeze was the Great Ice Age

Link to post
Share on other sites

The famouse "hockey stick" minimizes global warm period that preceded "the little ice Age" (ca 1300 - 1750). We have plenty of evidence both physical and historical of this warm period. Grapes were grown in England and the French attempted to pass laws and tariffs to discourage the import of grapes from England. The tree ring evidence shows a warm period whose (inferred) temperature levels were lower than the levels shown in the Hockey Stick. This could have been done to bias the statistics to show a greater temperature growth post 1750 than actually occurred. The fact that the models can be so manipulated is a troubling matter. Models with too many parameters can be adjusted to produced biased results.

The Club of Rome used to play such tricks with the statistics to proved that by the year 2000 the world would be out of oil and living in squalor.

The moral: beware of environmentalist groups who have an ax or a hockey stick to grind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, finally. At least we have something here.

Unfortunately, it is misleading. "The little Ice Age" was not a global phenomenon, and it was mainly restricted to Western Europe and some of the eastern parts of North America.

The little ice age was a freezing era in Europe and Norther Asia, probably due to the shut down of the Atlantic Halocline Conveyor. In short the Gulf Stream cease to warm up England, Northern Europe, the Scandinavian countries and the portions of Russia west of the Urals. The effects of this climate change is well supported historically. The Thames froze in winter and the Londoners had lots of fun holding winter fares on the frozen ice of the Thames. In Holland the canals froze solid in the winter. Time for Hans Brinker to break out the Silver Skates. The tree ring evidences show closer packing of the annual rings and some to the trees used to make violins were denser because of the freezing (the rings grew closer together). That is where Stadivarious got his wood to make such excellent instruments.

See this article for why Europe froze during the Little Ice Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

The last great idea age started about 2.1 million ybp and ended perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 ybp. We have been living in a rather comfortable inter glacial period since. This is also the time when agriculture originated and civilization flourished. We have inherited the notion that the climate of this inter glacial is "normal". Not so. Earth has frozen its arse off much more frequently than it has warmed up during the last 5 million years or so. The next Big Climate Shift will probably be to a very cool climate era.

It may be the case that our effluence of CO2 and other green house gases has delayed the return of the next Ice Age somewhat, that that probably will not last. Ironically, if we reduce our carbon foot print we may hasten the return of the next Ice Age. We are long overdue for it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That last global freeze was the Great Ice Age

I agree with most of what you're saying here, but the bolded implies that you're not denying that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Is that the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you're saying here, but the bolded implies that you're not denying that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Is that the case?

CO2 and what else is sustaining the current warm spell. Our buddies from IPPC absolutely refuse to factor in other natural drivers such as sun activity variation. Orbital variations. Axial tilt variations. The effect of cosmic rays on cloud production. Also feed back loops derived from the current climatic processes. They have centered on one cause. Human production of CO2 effluence. The earth had its worst warm spells when there were no mammals on the planet. The Devonian and Siberian eruptions are the Big Ones. Not only did they cause warming on a grand scale but destroyed must of the life on the surface.

When IPPC and the AGW mavens factor in all the known natural drivers then their conclusions may be more believable.

CO2 effluence is their version of Original Sin. If these people really believed what they say then they should be pushing hard for paving every industrial nation end to end with nuclear power generating stations. No CO2.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you're saying here, but the bolded implies that you're not denying that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Is that the case?

CO2 and what else is sustaining the current warm spell. Our buddies from IPPC absolutely refuse to factor in other natural drivers such as sun activity variation. Orbital variations. Axial tilt variations. The effect of cosmic rays on cloud production. Also feed back loops derived from the current climatic processes. They have centered on one cause. Human production of CO2 effluence. The earth had its worst warm spells when there were no mammals on the planet. The Devonian and Siberian eruptions are the Big Ones. Not only did they cause warming on a grand scale but destroyed must of the life on the surface.

When IPPC and the AGW mavens factor in all the known natural drivers then their conclusions may be more believable.

CO2 effluence is their version of Original Sin. If these people really believed what they say then they should be pushing hard for paving every industrial nation end to end with nuclear power generating stations. No CO2.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If you're saying that mainstream scientists are not taking these things into account, then you are misinformed. Like I've said about a thousand times now, if you have any actual evidence for this belief, present it. Otherwise, a claim unsupported by evidence can be denied without evidence.

Furthermore, the reason that the IPCC focus so much on CO2 emissions is because that is pretty much the only variable that humans can at all effect. There's not much anybody can do about the orbit of the Earth or solar output. (but also because those things are not the cause of the recent increase in average global temperatures)

Finally, you are committing a logical fallacy here:

If these people really believed what they say then they should be pushing hard for paving every industrial nation end to end with nuclear power generating stations. No CO2.

Not believing what they say is not the only reason for not "paving every industrial nation end to end with nuclear power generating stations". There are many ways to solve the global warming issue. I think Objectivists and other small government people should come up with their own solutions that don't involve violating rights on a massive scale or taking over the world or whatever, instead of irrationally denying climate science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... instead of irrationally denying climate science.

Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap...

Nobody denies "climate science," rationally or irrationally.

Faith in myths that are worshipped are hard to dig out of the psyche.

They keep the person making the same mistake over and over and over, yap yap yapping...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now