The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however, without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the global warming community, including elected officials with agendas, radical anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy groups and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making “The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U.S public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers? Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.
Check back with me in 2020.
26 thoughts on “Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again”
Be careful, Jack! The gods are capricious and your prediction verges on hubris.
Oh, I’m not talking about the non-imminence of global warming disasters — it’s that analogy to Donald Trump . . .
This comment is interesting, given what then-Mr. Trump became.
Are you an oracle, Penn?
Global warming advocates didn’t flunk credibility and ethics. UNEP flunked. By linking sane non-denialists to UNEP (without actually saying any of them are supporting UNEP’s predictions) you are flunking credibility and ethics.
And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time.
The number of things that are wrong with this idea astounds me. The exaggerators are at fault. Not the flat out liars, who then use the exaggerators to lie even more. Ugh.
Foul. That’s not what I said. I said that untrustworthy, unreliable advocates don’t and can’t convince anybody, even when they are right. There is always opposition to any major change in the status quo, and lies beget lies. A great deal of the criticism of global warming cant is not lies; the lies have been pretty well distributed, I’d say. The advocates for major policy changes have the burden of proof, and its their failing if they don’t meet it. Ugh yourself.
Actually, that’s exactly what you said. That’s also what you then repeated.
I forgot you were the person who thought that burning a Koran somehow makes an idiot responsible for riots and deaths half a globe away. This is a similar (but not identical by any means) situation of cause and effect. You got this one wrong as well.
I know you have a problem with the cause and effect principle, and hence the “inciting a riot” principle, as well as the current “failing the burden of proof principle.” Similarly, if a police officer can stop a murder, doesn’t, and the person dies, the officer is in fact to blame, on significant part, for the individual’s death. And if a jury find OJ innocent because the prosecution had a bad witness, it is, first and foremost, the prosecution’s fault, not “the ignorant” jury. All of your fantasies are linking up, however, which speaks well for your integrity.
Similarly, if a police officer can stop a murder, doesn’t, and the person dies, the officer is in fact to blame, on significant part, for the individual’s death
So the officer forsakes his sworn duty? Yea, he joins in the fault. How does that apply to either situation?
The government employs corrupt and racist cops and it comes back to bite them in the ass? They do a horrible job of explaining DNA evidence? Yea, that’s their fault. How does doing your job badly leading to the natural and proper outcome map to an individual performing a random action and other people inappropriately responding?
Your comparisons are not parallel situations. I think that speaks to your ability to rationalize.
In order for a riot to be incited, it has to happen at the time and place of incitement.
You really want to play that silly game? Really? UNEP is a prominent part of the global warming scientific community. No prominent climate scientist challenged those projections. The UNEP undermines the credibility of the scientific research generally—not that they are alone by any means.
Fun stuff. I think UNEP is not undermining the credibility of the scientific research at all. They’re just further undermining the credibility of the UN. Much like their human rights commission.
Well, that’s what should happen. Instead bad actors take the other route to dispute real science. Lay blame where blame is due.
If the science stuck with scientific ethics, didn’t over-hype itself and wasn’t politicized, it couldn’t be credibly attacked by liars or anyone else. Projections involving climate are always dicey and based on estimates of the unknown…the establishment is convinced that if their dire predictions are as equivocal as they know they have to be, then the public won’t support change. Well, that’s probably true; too damn bad. Their own lying, by assuming certainty that does not and cannot exist, has cut their own throats.
You are right, however, that the UN’s credibility was destroyed long, long ago.
Sorry I’m cranky today.
I’d like to note that the science isn’t being credibly attacked.
The only thing being credibly attacked is unsupported models, unsupported predictions, and false confidence. Those attacks are then being used to say “All science is bad!” instead of “These specific statements are bunk.”
That depends on how advocate is defined.
While technically true, it’s misleading.
When the Human Rights Council behaves horribly, we don’t say that humans rights advocates flunk credibility and ethics. Instead we say the UN flunks human rights. This is the same thing.
Thank God for Global Warming.
An Ice Age can be a real bummer.
You can accurately judge the worth of a cause by the worth of its adherents. The global warming falange is overflowing with morally compromised people… some of whom have been that way since the 1970’s, when they were hawking global cooling.
I hope you’re never on a jury.
I never make it past the selection process! Once the defense attorney looks at my background (veteran, former military cop, conservative, white male, bumper sticker with the words “You Lie!” on it, etc.) I’m one of the first he dumps. That’s cool. I still get paid for showing up!
An inconvenient truth
Remember this ?
The U.N. says we only have twelve years.
Wow, it is less than a year until 2020.
I am glad this thread, which predates my time here at EA, was brought up again. Great reading!
No one has found those 50 million climate refugees yet.
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?