Monday, September 15, 2014

Global Warming and Information Manipulation

Now if we Could Just Get the Chinese to Look at Evolution

Here is a paper out of the PRC that raises some awkward questions about the intellectual climate surrounding global warming. Apparently with all the blackballing, peer-review control, publication manipulation, and funding and career threats, the Chinese suspect there might be some manipulation of information at work.

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.

In other news, last week Rapid City had the earliest snow since 1888.

If the Chinese are sensing something awry in global warming, I can’t wait until they cast their gaze on evolution.

9 comments:

  1. Footnote 5: "It is worth noting that our model does not support the view of climate skeptics"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Footnote 6: "But we still believe it is a bunch of hot air."

      Delete
    2. What is the view of climate skeptics?

      Delete
  2. I don't think that is what they are saying. The rest of their footnote is "In fact, our key result—that overpessimism alleviates the underparticipation problem—implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to the society." In other words, they think you are the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaron:

      I was intrigued by passages such as this:

      " it has even been discovered that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a well-known intergovernmental scientific body, mistakenly claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The IPCC has tended to over-generalize its research results and accentuate the negative side of climate change. Following its lead, the mainstream media has gone even further. It is a routine and accepted practice that elements in the IPCC reports that indicate the possibility of high levels of crop damage in certain African countries are reported by the media without any qualifying considerations and with such headlines as “IPCC predicts 50% crop reductions in Africa.”2 Hulme (2009) reveals considerable overclaiming in the UK media reports on the IPCC Fourth Assessment; the impacts of climate change were invariably described as “catastrophic, disastrous and fearful,” with reporters' own “embellished” interpretations created “through their creative imagination.” "

      I'm sure you agree with me that browbeating, threats, etc, is no way to do science.

      Delete
    2. Of course threats are no way to do science but what this paper is about is a game theory model of influence and communication between groups. The communication they are looking at is sensationalist media, scare mongering to boost ratings within their own markets. Not anything about climate change conclusions or actual data information. This is just a math paper about spin. Of which they didn't quantify at all.

      Delete
  3. Anthropogenic global warming has become "climate change." Of course, the climate changes. "Climate change" is easier on the ear; nevertheless it misrepresents the problem, if indeed there is a problem.

    The AGW debate has become highly politicized - not unlike another debate we are all familiar with. That is one reason why I am a skeptic of AGW. Those who tend to marginalize the opposing view only tend to reinforce my skepticism. The political agenda seems to take priority over the objective analyses of the data.

    Then there are the recent data. The earth has been cooling for the last 17 years according to many scientists. Some are predicting even much cooler temperatures in the coming years.

    So, whom am I to believe?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Now if we Could Just Get the Chinese to Look at Evolution"

    I would like to know what those Chinese scientists who have been digging up fossils from the Cambrian explosion think. Has anyone from the west asked them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. some discussion of this in Stephen C Meyer, Darwin's Doubt - quote on p. 52 is pretty funny - "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

      Delete