Penn State Climate ‘Ethicist’ Acts Unethically

Penn State climate ‘ethicist’ Donald Brown runs afoul of his own criticism.

In the second installment of his effort to make climate skepticism unethical and immoral, Brown writes,

This entry first explains what is meant by the climate change disinformation campaign and then examines a number of specific tactics deployed by the climate science disinformation campaign. These tactics are… Reckless Disregard For The Truth…

Brown goes on to write,

The central claims of the climate change disinformation movement have been:

— There is no warming.
— Its not caused by humans.
— Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will cause more harm than good.

The first two assertions are themselves disinformation.

We’ve never heard a skeptic say there has been no warming. There certainly has been warming coming out of the Little Ice Age. While skeptics dispute the extent of the warming since then, no one doubts that there has been some.

Aside from the nonsensical nature of “no warming…not caused by humans,” the key skeptic contention is whether manmade greenhouse gases are having or will have a detectable or significant impact on climate. Alarmists offer no credible evidence to support their hypothesis that manmade greenhouse gases drive climate.

As Brown presumes to pontificate on climate, he must be deemed to be aware of these facts and has opted to ignore them in favor of disinformation.

Very ethical of you, Don.

Click for Brown’s first installment.
Click for Brown’s second installment.

3 thoughts on “Penn State Climate ‘Ethicist’ Acts Unethically”

  1. The irony is that without modern society this person would not be in the position he is today. He’d have to work to survive. This sort rhetoric only weakens their position and brands them as zealots. Next they’ll be calling people heretics.

  2. I just wasted part of my Sunday Morning reading this garbage. I even looked up “ethics.” I don’t believe Brown is acting unethically. He is defending his rice bowl and funding. He may even be defending his core belief that society had to be fundamentally changed and controlled. In this case it would be ethical for him to write this BS. Climate science seems to be a bit different from my scientific discipline and the determination of “ethical behavior” seems to have changed significantly in the past 4 decades. From

    plural noun
    1. ( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
    2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
    3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
    4. ( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

    If you believe your cause is right, then any actions taken to advance it may be “ethical”. Nice thing about squishy words. Notice he doesn’t talk much about “honesty.”

  3. It’s unethical to be skeptical, so just bugger off, moron. The ethics of climate science apparently require that there be no science. (Seriously, we did see this one coming from a mile away though?)

    This guy gets paid to do this? What a gig, but don’t you get just a little biased by having nothing to contribute but moral support and no other visible means of financial support? One might say the same thing about Hansen even though he is paid more hansomely, but I digress.

    Meanwhile, how can I make a decent wage with benefits by being an outspoken fan for my favorite musical group?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.