“The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.”

Aldous Huxley

A number of scientists and media folks believe the answer isFor me, the answer is an emphaticfor reasons I will explain belowLet's consider some of the arguments for and against and you can decide for yourselfGlobal warming due to human-caused (anthropogenic) increases in greenhouse gases is a significant threat to mankind. Yes, there are uncertainties, but there are potentially major, negative impacts for our species and the planet. Most climate scientists are in agreement that there could be serious problems by the end of the century from heat waves and droughts, to heavier precipitation and more extreme hurricanes if the rise of greenhouse gases are not reduced radically.The problem is that with all the talk, mankind is not doing enough to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and amounts of atmospheric greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly. Concerned climate activists note that most people do not see this issue a primary concern. And most of the impacts of increasing greenhouse gases, and it is very difficult to get folks to sacrifice NOW to deal with a threat to future individuals mainly in other countries.So the somewhat cynical approach used by "climate activists", some media, and unfortunately a few scientists has been to hype and exaggerate the impacts of increasing greenhouse gases onweather or ecological events, even though there is really little evidence of a anthropogenic greenhouse gas origin. Here in the Northwest we have seen media stories stating that lone trees in the arboretum, oysters in commercial hatcheries, snowpack in the Cascades, major windstorms, and one-year droughts have been caused by increasing greenhouse gases. But the evidence for these claims is very thin at best.I have been struck by the persistent questions of the local media....many simply don't understand why hyping global warming is a problem. For example, in a recent interview with KUOW, Bill Radke asked:And in a recent give and take , a writer (Charles Mudede) for the a local newspaper, the Stranger, commended past Mayor Nickels for hyping snowpack loss and explicitly state that the media needs to exaggerate enough to move the population to a state of "panic" about climate change. You can't make up things like this.Climate change exaggeration has also spread to the politicians and their associates. Major Washington State officials talk frequently about the oyster factory deaths as caused by CO2 emissions, Mayor Nickels pushed snowpack loss, President Obama's science advisor claimed that eastern cold waves were caused by global warming, Governor Cuomo claimed that Hurricane Sandy was related to increasing greenhouse gases, and many more. The list of such baseless claims is very long. And there are cheerleaders in non-profit organizations (like Climate Central or Seattle's Climate Solutions) that not only applaud such nonsense, but take it further at times.But perhaps the worst (and most inexcusable) examples of global warming hyping is from some activist scientists. A primo example for our region was the attempt by some local scientists to hype the loss of Cascade snowpack, claiming it was a local example of greenhouse warming. This led to the firing of the Associate State Climatologist by the then Washington State Climatologist. I wrote a paper with Mark Stoelinga and Mark Albright (accepted in the peer-reviewed literature) disproving these exaggerations, by the way. There are many more examples of scientists giving up their objectivity to become advocates.The job of science and scientists is to provide society with accurate information: about what we know, what we don't know, and information regarding the confidence in future projections. It is a not scientist's job to make society's decisions or to push folks to take certain actions--that is in the realm of the political system.For the past half century, there has been bipartisan support of science and this will only continue as long as scientists stay objective and politically neutral. As soon as science appears as an advocate for one party or sides with one party, it will lose the support of the other. And nothing major can be done in this country--particularly long-term issues like climate--without having support across the aisle.Crying wolf by hyping climate impacts will undermine confidence in Science by the general population and decision makers, because sooner or later it becomes obvious that bad information was being distributed. Here in the Northwest, those claiming a permanent loss of snowpack in the mid-2000s, now must explain the bountiful snowpacks of the last decade. Those suggesting the CO2 killed the oysters, now have to explain the recent excellent harvests of all kinds of shellfish. Those claiming that the West Coast was heading for permanent drought two years ago, have to explain the turn towards wetter conditions.Those pushing for exaggerating climate change forgot a very important issue: that realistic and accurate predictions are required by society to adapt to expected changes. Any climate scientist will tell you that a certain amount of future climate change is guaranteed due to the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (which the atmosphere hasn't caught up with) and the fact that we aren't going to zero emissions in the near future. To protect lives and property, substantial adaptation efforts will be be needed, such as infrastructure improvements. For example, more dams and reservoirs may be needed to deal with reduced snowpack. Some folks will have to move away from locations near river banks, as maximum flows are enhanced by warming.: the costs could be hugely increased or the designs would be improper for the actual future environment.Adaptation and resilience to climate change will demand the best projections science can determine, including full information about uncertainties. Politically useful exaggerations today will not be adequate.By hyping and exaggerating the current and near-term impacts of global warming, climate exaggerators are putting substantial stress on on the general population, and. The constant headlines and apocalyptic warnings are making people feel vulnerable, uncertain, powerless and under duress, particularly since most don't possess a lot of options for moving or changing their lifestyles. The media is making thing worst by talking about climate psychological stress, with some even suggesting the existence ofI have gotten dozens of emails from folks acutely worried about climate change, including those ready to move to our region to escape disaster in their current locals. Particularly poignant was a woman that was afraid to move to San Diego to aid her aging father, because she feared that imminent climate disasters in southern CA would endanger her teen-aged children. Hype and exaggeration can push folks to turn away from the unpleasant stressor, making productive action less, not more, likelyFolks have a good intuition about when they are being played or lied to. When someone is exaggerating and distorting the truth. When global warming is used as an explanation for nearly any type of natural (or unnatural) disaster, folks start doubting. Heat waves? Global warming. Cold Waves? Global warming? Floods? Global warming. Drought? Global warming. Dead trees? Global warming. Too much vegetation growth that cause fires? Global warming.Such hype is particularly obvious when it gets combined with the social goals of a particular party.And in this environment of hype, they see climate scientists, climate activists, and vocal politicians not "walking the talk" in their own lives, such as enjoying extensive domestic and foreign travel on carbon-emitting aircraft. Climate exaggeration, and the doubts it engenders, make itlikely that folks will try to reduce carbon emissions or support policies that do.When scientists work to provide objective truth about climate change, moderate and conservative folks are much more likely to listen. I have learned this first hand: since I am known as someone that rejects hype, I have been invited to talk to conservative groups about climate change. I was surprised that many of such groups are concerned about long term impacts (such as agriculture interests in eastern WA) and are ready to work on adaptation efforts.Global warming is not the only environmental issue or challenge. But hyper-attention to increasing greenhouse gases cankey environmental efforts that enhance our sustainability with our planet. Consider large wildfires over eastern Washington. Some folks, including major WA State politicians, keep on talking about the role of global warming. But talk to folks who really understand the problem (such as faculty in UW's Forest Resources College) and they discuss ill-conceived fire control and poor forest practices that have led to an unnatural and dangerously flammable forest environment. And key steps to fixing our forests were stopped or slowed by those pushing a global warming agenda (e.g., prescribed burns, thinning and removal of slash). Commercial oyster growers clothed themselves in greenhouse gas environmentalism, distracting politicians in our state from dealing with the oyster-growers anti-environmental actions, like widely spraying toxic herbicides and pesticides over Washington State waterways.Throughout our nation's history there have been those who have attempted to deceive the public to get them "to do the right thing." Lies encouraging people to support supposedly great goals have generally produced public disasters. Consider a few:1. Lying to the public about weapons of mass destruction prior to the second Gulf War by President Bush and associates. That led to an unnecessary war, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and the destabilization of the Middle East.2. Exaggeration of the threat of the "domino effect" led to the Vietnam War.3. Exaggeration of the threat of marijuana, led to nutty drug laws that resulted in enriched drug lords and the preferential imprisonment of minorities.4. Exaggeration of the threat of terrorism resulted in a hugely expensive war on terror that undermined our civil liberties and cost trillions of dollars.Finally, I know some folks will ask me why I have mainly discussed misinformation on the "pro", generally left-leading, side, and not taken on the "skeptics" that have certainly spread inaccurate information about the global warming threat. My main reason is that "pro" side have generally been the dominant, controlling group. The scientific community and most of the media (e.g., NY Times, WA Post, LA Times, Seattle Times, most networks, etc.) have been on the "pro" side, as has the Federal government for most of the past several decades. And, being a scientist and living in Seattle, the "pro" side is around me all the time.