The American Journal of Agricultural Economics has published a paper offering a defense for the manipulation of data in order to influence nations to adopt climate change measures. This wouldn’t be necessary of the data didn’t already show there’s been no warming in nearly two decades. The data itself is enough of a reason to be skeptical of the claims of climate activists. But when you have credentialed university professors making the case that the ends justify the means with such tactics, it’s difficult to believe the science is settled.
Below is the complete abstract from the paper titled, Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements:
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.
If the science is settled, manipulation and exaggeration. One could simply present the actual data…unless the actual data doesn’t support your claims, that is.