A recent paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, which is “peer reviewed,” encourages climate-change supporters to lie to people in order to sway their opinion.
According to Breitbart, the two authors of the paper are Assistant Professors of Economics and acknowledge that both the media and the community of scientists routinely exaggerate the issues surrounding climate-change, rather than denying it like most others do. Not only do they acknowledge it, but they encourage others to do it by rationalizing dishonesty in order to force desirable public policy.
The two economists, Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, claim that “informational manipulation” has an “instrumental value” since it causes more countries to participate in the International Environmental Agreement.
The 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.
So now not only are those pushing the climate-change will kill us all narrative lying to us, they’re proud of the fact that they are and are actually encouraging others to do so.
Time after time we hear of false claims being made and see the cover-up that follows as a result, but as James Delingpole from Breitbart correctly asserts “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.”
So now after seeing what exactly gets published in “peer reviewed” papers and journals, maybe you will think twice about how reliable the information is. After all, the concept of intentionally lying to achieve an ultimate end was “peer reviewed,” so what other junk do they approve of?
There’s a famous quote that says “if it can be destroyed by the truth, then it deserves to be destroyed by the truth.” Something tells me that should apply here.
Do you agree with the climate-change crowd that lying to enact laws and regulations is okay or do you think that the truth and facts should be what guides us? Let us know with a comment!