There is too much greed in the world to look at the science of Climate Change objectively, even though the objective research is documented and peer reviewed, critiqued, dispelled, agreed upon, etc... I don't believe it is ok to like about the effects of Climate Change. I believe the research should be strictly objective, and the media should only be able to report the effects with at least a basic understanding instead of letting their moral outlook supersede their segment. Then there are the greedy, who either want to dismantle the notion because it would hurt their business or the greedy who want to push green laws for personal gain or green products for personal gain. Then there are the scientists looking at all this, going what the hell? Here's what we've figured out so far, here's what's going on right now, and here are our projections. Why is everyone so confused?
You claim:
"My last question was reported by an alarmist who obviously did not like me linking to a peer reviewed paper claiming that lying about Climate Change is a good thing"
1. What proof do you have about who reported the question? Personally, I find it more likely that Maxx reported the question because he did not like his past lies documented.
2. Have you read any more of that paper you linked to than the abstract? If you haven't, I suspect that your claim is completely unjustified.
As I said before, it's not ok to lie, and it's also not ok to say things about which you have no proof. If you do that, and you are wrong, that is equivalent to lying.
Is it ok to lie about climate change? Legally yes it is ok, morally no it is not ok.
Kano argues there should be laws against lying to the public and while I agree that lying is morally wrong, proving that a person is lying, would require the prosecutor to show that the defendant knew that what he or she is saying is not only false, the prosecutor has to show that the defendant could reasonably be expect to know that it was a lie. The downside is that if we make the laws strict so that only proven facts can be disseminated by the media, that it would stifle free speech. And the question one would have to ask is "would a 97% scientific consensus be sufficient to accept a fact as proven?
For example one of the reasons I do not watch the mainstream media is because I do not trust the information they give me, however when it comes to AGW, Fox News, the most watched tv news source in the US, is wrong an astonishingly 93% of the time. [2] The sceptic in me thinks it is unlikely they are simply mistaken, but proving that they are lying, in a court of law is proven to be difficult. [3]
On the other hand Sagebrush continues to lie, many of the quotes he attributes to people can not be found on-line in semi reputable sources. And of those that can be found, we find that the quote is often taken out of context. For for example the quote he attributes to John T. Houghton is a lie by omission the full quote is "If we want a good environmental policy in the future we'll have to have a disaster. It's like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there's been an accident." [4] Now I did correct him many times, including this particular misquote recently, so if we assume he is sane, he can reasonably be expected to know better, but instead he just keeps on repeating the lie.
Rather then debate the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, Sagebrush is trying to use association fallacies [4] (often by misquoting and even outright fabrications) that because some people said something that sounds suspicious, that therefore the whole scientific community is "bad" So lets see how this works.
Quotes by Sagebrush (who frequently quotes Nazi's to further his cause)
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA",
"Sustainability is a codeword for communism",
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch",
"Justice and equality are codewords for communism",
"God has his hand on the thermostat".
So while it is obvious what kind of person Sagebrush is, if we were to use his "logic" [5] it would make ALL deniers, genocidal, Nazi loving, justice, equality and sustainability hating, religious extremists. Clearly many deniers are not, but it would not be totally unreasonable to assume that his fans [6] are, since they chose to become his fan. And contributors here, who give him thumbs up for making those kind of arguments, [5] are clearly not sceptics because by giving him the thumbs up, they accept his false quotes as factual. (And encourage the lie)
Without reading the study fully I would make a couple of observations:
"some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change."
I have no idea to which organisations they refer, although they clearly state "some". What I do know is the IPCC has been criticised for being too conservative, and that it is likely that their stated projections are likely to be exceeded. Every time the IPCC publishes its findings, their projections have been amended 'upwards'.
Secondly, the study is looking at how messages regarding CC can be instrumental in garnering international support and cohesion in tackling climate change, something the study percieves as a benefit.
In other words, it is not a study that examines the reality or severity of CC (operating from the perspective that CC is real, is man-made and needs international cooperation in order to be tackled), but one that examines the dissemination of information and scientific data surrounding CC.
It casts no doubt on the reality of CC at all.
Not good to lie.
(The paper outlined a reason to lie, but did not actually recommend lying. And it was not in a scientific venue.)
So... you didn't like the replies you got previously, so you re-posted hoping you would get different answers.
Sounds like a typical denialist tactic.
Do you also disbelieve evolution?
IF man made Climate change occurred then all life would die. Mike
It must be denialists do it constantly, that or they are just plain stupid
AGW or CC is based on the lie. The true scientists on this site have been conveying that thought for years. The greenies themselves even admit it is a lie, but it is OK to lie because they have an agenda that is more important than the truth.
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
In other words, "We don't care if the Earth and science back up our ideas, we are going to cram them down everyone's throat anyway."
Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
Fiction has no companionship with true science.
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
Over-representation is just a sugary word for a lie.
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "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."
A scary scenario is more important than the truth to these greenies.
Quote by Sir John Houghton, pompous lead editor of first three agenda reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
And if there isn't any disaster then they will manufacture one.
Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ ― and readers’ ― attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
That says it all. "climate scientists might exaggerate" So we can see by the 'Climate Scientists' on this site that they feel it is their duty to mislead. To deceive. To distort. To corrupt thoughts and data.
As an example one Climate Scientist on this site who goes by the name of Trevor was caught lying and distorting three times on one question. Look and see for yourself.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
I have many other examples where so called scientists on this site have been caught with their pants down. This is not just a different view, but a total outright lie. They know the truth but they want to deceive. There is now a renewed effort to sell this AGW and Climate Change to the masses and the so called 'scientists' are coming out of the closet and admitting that lying not science is their main goal.
No it is no alright to lie about anything, but especially something as important as this which affects everyone's lives.
Obviously some alarmists did not like the question so I've decided to repost.
Do you believe it is okay to lie about the effects of Climate Change?
http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract
To the incompetent and bias Yahoo moderators.
1) This is in the form of a question. I would really like to know if it is okay to lie about Climate Change. I am linking to a peer reviewed paper that is making the case that lying about Climate Change is a good thing.
2) I am not insulting anyone. I am stating that Yahoo moderators are bias and incompetent.This is not an opinion but actual fact.
3) Perhaps you could include a link where I could actually appeal a deletion rather than a link to FAQ's about Yahoo Answers.
4) I am ranting in this question so I suppose you will delete it again. That's okay. I feel better after venting my frustration at your incompetence.
