Lying for the Good of Society

Dr Stephen Schneider, a well known climatologist at Stanford University, stated in a 1988 interview with Discover Magazine:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means 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. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both (emphasis added).”

Now two economists, one from Shanghai and the other from Hong Kong have provided the formula Dr. Schneider needs to solve his “double ethical bind”. In their 2013 paper Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements, Hong and Zhao have provided a scientific rationalization to lie, so long as one was lying for the good of society. The abstract of the paper starts out:

---

It appears that the news media has the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This paper provides a rationale for it (emphasis added).

The paper is essentially a collection of mathematical gobbledygook that provides the formula that Dr Stephen Schneider was looking for. Now ‘scientifically’ lying is not only justified, it is warranted when it is done to convince governments to do more to fight global warming. This is a ‘scientific’ rationalization of practices that have been ongoing for quite some time. In a 2006 interview with Grist Magazine, Al Gore stated “Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, 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 (emphasis added).” Of course, Gore, as a politician was doing what politicians do, lie. But now we scientists can lie too. We no longer need “…to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” For years, a number of environmental groups have exaggerated the affects of global warming. One of the curious byproducts of this climate alarmism is that these organizations have brought in tens of millions of dollars in donations. Normally, deceiving the public for financial gain would be considered fraud (wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain). However, we all know that these groups are not deceiving the public for financial gain; they are deceiving the public for the good of society. To Dr. Schneider’s credit, he did call for scientists to adhere to the scientific method. But since we are now able to “manipulate information” about the impact of climate change, then why not manipulate the data itself? After all, it is for the good of society. When one looks at the data, we can see that it has, in fact, been manipulated. At least the temperature station records maintained by NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). Sometime between 2008 and 2012, temperature records in NASA’s GISS data base have been altered to show up to 2o more warming has actually occurred (Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1: Temperature station data for Brenham Texas. The upper graph was downloaded from the NASA GISS data base in late 2012. The lower graph was downloaded from the same site in mid 2008. Figure 2: Temperature station data for Lincoln Virginia. The upper graph was downloaded from the NASA GISS data base in late 2012. The lower graph was downloaded from the same site in mid 2008. GISS was, until recently, headed by long-time Al Gore advisor James Hansen and is now headed by Gavin Schmidt (co-founder of RealClimate.org). Hanson and Schmidt have both profited by being global warming alarmists. Prior to the 2013 paper by Hong and Zhao, profiting from such manipulation of data would be considered fraud. But now, since this is for the good of society, it is acceptable. While we are at it, energy is good for society. In fact, for any nation to have a sound economy, it needs access to reasonably priced energy. Since we need energy, we need to drill wells to access oil and gas. So oil and gas companies can lie to their investors; they can manipulate the data to make their portfolio look good. They can lie through their teeth about the potential and the risk. And, when the media, or Congressional oversight committees accuse them of being Enron emulators, these companies can simply cite Hong and Zhao and tell them it’s alright, it’s for the good of society.