Media exaggerating climate change damage has an instrumental value

“The main difficulty of the climate problem is that it is a global public problem and we lack an international government to regulate it”

Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao published a paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

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.

Of course this paper didn’t go unnoticed and many where quick to criticize.

Climate Depot reports:

The authors Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao sent out a note to members of the media which read in part: “Unfortunately, our points in the paper have been mis-interpreted and exaggerated by a few media. In the link below, please see our reply to the blog of Jayson Lusk. http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2014/3/6/information-manipulation-revisited – Hopefully, this link helps clarify our point. We never advocate lying on climate change.

So in an effort to clear up their position, Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao responded to one blogger critique with the following.

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.

Global Warming hysteria has one purpose. That is simply to get the masses to clamor for a global authority capable of crushing those who disagree with any plan to “save the world.” It’s a power grab and a move toward one world government. It represents the end of Individual Liberty should the masses be duped.

Heat Source vs. Insolation: Absurdity of the Assertions of Climate Science

The temperature swings on earth from day to night are less extreme thanks to the atmosphere. Temperatures on the moon, on the other hand,  swing wildly.

The Lut Desert in Iran is the considered the hottest place on earth. In 2005, infrared data collected from the Landsat satellites measured the temperature there at 70.7 °C . When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 123 °C .

The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2 °C at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica, on July 21, 1983. The “dark side of the moon” can have temperatures dipping to – 153 °C .

Without an atmosphere, the earth’s surface would be both hotter in areas receiving direct sunlight and cooler in the shade. It seems fair to say that the earth’s atmosphere both cools and warms deflects heat and retards cooling of the earth. It cools parts of the earth which face the sun by deflecting radiation from the sun back into space. It warms areas of the earth which are not facing the sun by limiting the speed at which the warmth of the earth’s surface can dissipate up, out into space.

So often we are told a similar yet misleading story about our atmosphere. It usually goes something like this…

“Earth’s atmosphere acts like a blanket, trapping infrared radiation close to the planet and warming it up. Without the atmosphere, the temperature on Earth would be more like the Moon, which rises to 116° C in the day, and then dips down to -173° C at night.” http://www.universetoday.com/48328/earth-surface-temperature/

In order to see the deception in this statement, it’s important to define warming. If you warm something you increase it’s temperature. Slowing the rate at which a warm body cools is not warming. Slowing the rate of cooling is called insulating.

A human body produces heat. That heat will radiate away from the surface of the skin faster if it is not covered. A blanket slows the rate at which the body’s warmth can radiate away.  Trapping the bodies warmth and preventing it from dissipating away does not make the blanket into a source of heat. The only source of heat in this situation is the body itself.

The same truth applies to earth and it’s atmosphere. The atmosphere does act as a blanket which prevents the warm earth from cooling when not exposed to direct sunlight. To imply that the atmosphere itself is a heat source, is false.
A fire burning in a log cabin is the source of heat which warms the air inside. The cabin walls contain and insulate the warm air within from the cold air outside. The walls have no heat to offer the room.  The walls can only serve to slow the rate at which the air in the room (warmed by the fire) cools.

Climate alarmists want to make the walls, the blanket and the atmosphere more than an insulator. They insist these are heat sources, which I find completely absurd. The blanket, the cabin walls, and yes, the earth’s atmosphere have no capacity to create heat in the system that was not generated by the body, the fire, and the sun respectively.

It’s OK to change your mind

Many prominent scientists no longer agree with the predictions espoused by the highly politicized “science” of man-made global warming.

Here are a few cases of interest…

We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

“This is nonsense,” says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists — a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,” he says. “Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/13971#ixzz37TBsNskv

 

Defectors from IPCC Report Speak

A United Nations climate change conference in Poland got a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming – labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Their voices will also be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* “I am a skeptic … . Global warming has become a new religion.” — Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … . As a scientist I remain skeptical.” — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

http://michaelgersh.blogspot.com/2008/12/defectors-from-ipcc-report-speak.html

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

 

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency’s inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.

“In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories,” Tol tells National Review Online. “We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse . . . I felt uncomfortable with the direction [the IPCC report] was going.”

Tol, who has been working with the IPCC since 1994, was the lead author of Chapter 10 of the report, on key economic sectors and services. He was also a contributor to Chapters 17 and 19, on the economics of adaptation to climate change and emergent risks, respectively.

He took his name off of the final summary because he felt the IPCC did not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming.

http://connect.freedomworks.org/news/view/434569?destination=news

 

One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson – a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction – is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

“He’s a big, big player. The biggest by far to change sides,” says the GWPF’s Benny Peiser. “What’s particularly significant is that his speciality is climate modelling – and computer models, as you know, are at the heart of global warming theory. He is the most significant figure to admit, as many modellers are beginning to notice, that there is an increasing discrepancy between what the models predicted and what the real world data is actually telling us.

Lennart’s is just the latest in a series of defections from the climate alarmist camp to the cause of realism.

Others include:

James Lovelock; English scientist; inventor of Gaia Theory; godfather of Green.

Formerly an arch-exponent of man-made climate doom theory, predicting as recently as 2007, that “billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic”. Now admits: “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we did 20 years ago.” Pro-nuclear; mildly pro-fracking; anti-wind farms.

Judith Curry – American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Though still a self-described “luke warmer”, Curry was probably the most senior member of the warmist establishment – up until Bengtsson’s defection – to fraternise with the enemy. This has earned her the badge of honour of being labelled “anti-science” by Michael Mann. In her blog Climate Etc she tries to encourage climate alarmists to show a sense of proportion and admit the limits of their knowledge. Of the National Climate Assessment report, she wrote:

My main conclusion from reading the report is this:  the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless.  The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change.

Fritz Vahrenholt – German professor; environmental activist; one of the founders of the German green movement; former Environmental Senator of Hamburg.

Vahrenholt’s climate-sceptical bestseller Die Kalte Sonne (translated as The Neglected Sun) sent shock waves through the German green movement. It earned him the title “eco-reactionary” from the left-liberal German media which was appalled at what they saw as his betrayal of the Cause. Vahrenholt argued that the sun – not CO2 – was the most significant driver of climate change; that predictions of man-made climate doom had been overdone; and that science had been corrupted by political indoctrination.

Sigmar Gabriel – German vice-chancellor; ex environment minister; formerly an enthusiast for green energy policy; now admits that Germany’s Energiewende – its transition to renewables – has been pointless and destructive.

George Monbiot – humorist; Guardian scribe; environmental campaigner; scourge of climate sceptics; has since divided the green movement over his removal of the Atomkraft? Nein Danke sticker on the back of his florally-decorated VW Kombi and his decision that nuclear energy is, after all, the way forward. For this crime he is now being harried by green campaigners who are offering a £100 reward to anyone prepared to arrest him for his “crimes against the environment and humanity.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus

 

Highly trained scientists changed their mind. They no longer believe the CO2 causes the earth to warm. How can you be so sure it does? They changed their mind. So can you.

 

Climate Science Mentality in a Nutshell

The primary assertion of climate science is that AT THIS VERY MOMENT the temperature somewhere on earth is wrong. Wrong only because it is believed to be  different (warmer or cooler) than it would be if,  up to this moment, humans had not occupied the earth.

I have two questions for any climate scientist.

1. Can you prove that the current temperature somewhere on earth is wrong at this very moment? Conversely, can you prove what the temperature of any given point on earth should be moment by moment?
2. Convinced as you are of man’s negative impact on his environment, what do you think should be done now (the present moment) to facilitate the correction of future temperatures at the particular points on earth that you’ve determined to be presently incorrect?