Who Decides?
A Guest post by Evan Jones.
We are currently in the midst of a serious policy debate on the highly technical subject of world climate change. What is it happening? Why is it happening? What are we to do? And ultimately who is to decide what we will do? I attempt only to answer the last of these questions here.
The important decisions facing this world will, in the future as in the past, be decided not by experts but by laymen: the public at large and/or our elected officials. In a significant majority of important policy cases, the decision makers are not expert in the field. They are (usually) not scientists, economists, historians, or strategists.
It is notable that a technocratic, authoritarian “solution” has been advanced on many occasions, including, recently by David Shearman, Joseph Wayne Smith in The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, which seriously recommends rule “by experts and not by those who seek power”.
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C34504.aspx
Seeking power but not in the name of seeking power is, however, an inherently self-contradictory proposition. The free citizen and his elected representatives alone have the right, and wherewithal to make these decisions.
Yes, experts must inform us. In fact, their advice is indispensable. Without expert advice, many of our decisions would be made in a fog of ignorance and uncertainty. The expert has a special status and a deserved esteem. However, it is the role of the expert to inform, not to decide. This is as it should be. The alternative is a technocracy which not only excludes the common citizen from the decision making process, but results in intramural conflict between the technocrats themselves.
A courtroom operates along the same lines. In many cases, the advice of the expert is essential. Only the expert can inform us about a DNA match, a bullet grooving, or even mundane details of, say, phone records. It may be fairly said that in many if not most cases, both the decision and the remedy hinge on expert testimony.
Yet it is not up to the expert either to reach a verdict or to pass sentence. And it up to the judge to act as “gatekeeper”, not the experts. It is very poor form for an expert to refuse to divulge data or methods. It is at the very least an anti-scientific attitude and should be regarded by the layman as such.
Experts are excluded from the jury, deliberately separated from the decision process. In the realm of politics, the unelected expert plays much the same role as in a trial: Decision makers may well call upon expert testimony and advice. But when it comes down to the hanging chads, the expert has only his vote as an expression of power, a vote with no more absolute weight than that of Joe Shmoe.
In the role of advisor, the expert has a considerable obligation. He is expected to be truthful and objective. He is expected to limit his advice to his realm of expertise. He is expected to tell the story straight and not exaggerate for effect or to ensure a particular course of action.
He is expected to be responsible. He is, in a sense, our shepherd. He must not cry wolf for “amusement” nor in response to every passing shadow. This is important. There are real wolves out there, and there are times when only the shepherds can provide us with warning. The obligation of the shepherd is not only to cry wolf when there is a real potential danger but also not to cry wolf when there is not. The decision whether or not to cry wolf is up to the shepherd, not the public at large.
This leaves the layman in a difficult position, for the public, as decision makers must pay heed to a cry of wolf. They are not experts on wolves. And the solution to a false crying of wolf is not to ban shepherds. Nonetheless, in terms of climate as well as wolves, the layman can and must play the role of arbiter, and play it well. If the public at large were not capable of deciding basic issues of policy, democracy itself would long since have proven an unworkable farce.
However if the individual expert or decision maker is found to be acting deliberately in bad faith, he may be held accountable. For example, as Steve McIntyre has pointed out, it is against the law to promote a mining enterprise using only the richest ore samples.
But where to draw the line between outright fraud, mere intellectual dishonesty, or irresponsibility becomes moot. What then of the infamous email reported by David Denning, saying, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” in order to “pervert science in the service of social and political causes”.
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
This, if true, is clearly dishonest, but it is not at all clear that it is actionable.
In the climate debate, three examples of legal though clearly deplorable advocacy spring readily to mind.
1.) Heidi Cullen’s suggestion that the AMS should withhold certification from weathermen who did not, “truly educate themselves on the science of global warming,” leaving no doubt as to what the conclusion of said education should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Cullen
Note, however, that it would be perfectly acceptable to decertify (or even prosecute) a weatherman who deliberately misreported an approaching storm in order to make a killing by short-selling the stock of the local insurance company.
2.) David Suzuki’s challenge, “to find a way to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” i.e., those who stood in the way global warming legislation. (This is especially unseemly, coming as it does from an official of a human rights group.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
Yet it would be perfectly appropriate to do so in the case of an MP who accepted a bribe from an oil company in return for a vote against GW measures.
3.) David Roberts’ deplorable comment that, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106
It is the responsibility of the layman to recognize such statements, whatever their source, for what they are: advocacy of the suppression of free and open debate. He must consider only the legitimate points from both sides of the controversy and come to a rational policy decision.
No matter how complicated an issue may be, it can generally be broken down into basic questions and decision points that can be expressed on the side of a postcard. But in order to do that, the layman requires unbiased advice, or at least the advice of both sides. For the expert to rebuke him with a patronizing “read a book” is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the expert. It is not the layman’s responsibility to become an expert on every subject requiring a decision. Furthermore, it is a practical impossibility. It is up to the expert to explain his position simply, plainly, and in layman’s terms.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great post. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel at a recent climate conference said:
An example of the Weather Channel’s heavy-handed moonbattery would be Heidi Cullen’s demand that weather people who won’t drink the global warming Kool-Aid be decertified by the American Meteorological Society.
Coleman has been fed to the teeth with the global warming hoax, and proposes we fight it by suing carbon credit hucksters for fraud:
[I] have a feeling this is the opening. If the lawyers will take the case — sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.
What do you think about this?
This is exactly the message that I have been trying to get across to people. But when you get unholy alliances between “scientists” and politicians, how do you get justice, other than to go to court? And would someone explain to me why the mainstream media is so biased in this? Does crying wolf really sell that many more newspapers? Or has the educational system failed so badly that the average voter can absorb only 20 second sound bites? Where can we start cleaning up this fradulent mess?
Remember, a century of adjustments does not a trend make.
What do you think about this?
I think the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way, or, at the very least, slow down.
Great post Evan.
I share your concerns about scientific practice. This is really nothing new. This particular hoax does indeed threaten human lives, en masse. Having a conscience, we must call the charletan, a charletan. Guess which side I am on.
The hockey stick curve was a clue. And of course, follow the money. But above all, watch out for the collectivists.
“A Guest post by Evan Jones” leaves me feeling that what should be a powerful opinion piece loses its cutting edge through lack of judious pruning.
I make this criticism only because Evan’s post is powerful, and is important, and is one I would like to link to in various forums and blogs as carrying a useful and necessary message.
In its present form I feel it would fail to inspire the thought and comment it deserves… and so be lost.
I could not have written it, Evan; nor could I prune or edit it, but I will check back to see if you find positive value in my opinion and perhaps prevail upon our host to allow you to make changes.
Evan,
In my humble non scientific opinion I think your post should be mandantory reading for all scientists and climate scientists in particular. I find it very disturbing when the methodology and the raw data are denied for others to use in study. It is also disturbing when known debunked data or findings are used for later papers and models.
I thank you for the good post and the time it took to formulate. it is like a breath of fresh air. Perhaps some time the experts will find that the common man is the one that will make the decision.
Again thanks for your effort and time
Bill
Hi folks,
Evan Jone’s article is written in such a way that us laymen can get. Great job! The fact that the issue of Global Warming is political scares me, and Evan gave encouragement there is hope that integrity exists within our community of “experts” by clarifying what an experts job is in the scheme of life.
I still believe global warming is an issue, but have great admiration for whoever Evan Jones is. Thank-you very much, Evan.
George M said:
“This is exactly the message that I have been trying to get across to people. But when you get unholy alliances between “scientists” and politicians, how do you get justice, other than to go to court?”
I’m not sure the courts are going to be much help. I’ve got a post up at the moment about an expert witness in a UK trial who had some startling things to say about the “consensus”.
I think a class-action suit could be filed by businesses and parties who have incurred losses and damages because of fraud-driven legislation, regulation and emissions trade. Remember the claim is that CO2 is a pollutant – it’s not. But still, many people are now making investments and business decisions based on this dubious premise. In Germany we are paying energy taxes through the nose because of this “science”. Clearly many governments have used this to empty the pockets of the taxpayers, and to regulate their lives.
Also a huge number of 3rd world citizens are really beginning to suffer, even die of starvation, because of the higher food prices driven by the bio-fuel farce.
Several politicians have properly identified the crisis with which we are now confronted, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Al Gore, Michael Bloomberg, John McCain. Thatcher was one of the first.
The raw data which has been amassed over the last half century at the Mauna Loa station in Hawaii speaks for itself. The primary and over riding factor determining today’s climate changes is atmospheric CO2. So powerful is this effect that for all practical purposes all other parameters can be ignored.
The earth has always undergone great climatic and temperature changes. It is the “rate of change” that distinguishes the present from the past, a rate Tim Flannery estimates to be thirty times greater than what took place at the end of the last ice age. To ignore the conclusions of this fine naturalist and scientist, a rare combination, is a serious mistake. He is reminiscent of Alfred Russel Wallace who had those same characteristics and was one of the first to recognize the perils associated with an elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide.
“No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men.”
Thomas Carlyle
I predict that before the end of this decade, those who question the influence of the Age of Technology on the survival of our civilization will be scarce as hen’s teeth. In my opinion, it is much too late to do anything about what amounts to a predestined suicide. It ironic that Homo sapiens, the youngest and last true mammalian species to ever appear, may be the one with the shortest life span, possibly under 150,000 years.
“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns…A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
john.a.davison.free.fr/
I propose here and now a COUNTER ATTACK BRAINSTORMING SESSION, to come up with strategies to fight this fraud. Mr. Gray’s idea of sueing is a very good possibility. Some of my own:
1. Publicly demand that alarmists put bets down on their alarmist scenarios, e.g. sea level rises, malaria etc. (They won’t).
2. Step up the demand for debate.
3. Place more full page ads in major papers.
3. Publicly demand that the USA Today, NYT, LAT, Globe etc. stop printing and distributing hard copy editions of their papers, as this only kills trees and produces massive amounts of CO2. They should tell their readers and advertisers that the news will be in the internet only.
4. Sue the private jet industry, as their machines are planet destroyers. (Yes, we would have to play the role of a tree-hugger in this case). Imagine Gore and Hollywood having to give up their prized jets.
5. Demand there be legislation limiting the size of a home. Do Gore and all them stars need such big energy-gobbling homes? Wouldn’t 1000 sq.ft. per occupant be enough? They ought to lead by example.
5. Boycotts
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?
Readers ought to add to this list. Don’t worry about feasibility. Let’s just throw down a lot of ideas. I’M SURE WE’LL SURPRISE OURSELVES AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING INTERESTING AND EFFECTIVE.
To me, the world you are describing sounds like some sort of Utopian fantasyland; it is certainly not the planet I inhabit. In what passes itself off as democratic government, politicians will make decisions and form policy based on the prevailing majority public opinion. In other words, they will act in a manner to protect their party’s political longevity. If the public has been persuaded that the tooth fairy is real and endangered, legislation will be enacted to protect the tooth fairy, even if in the mind of the legislators the prevailing belief is absurd, and the legislation will damage the society they have been elected to protect.
Therefore, we develop a society which is shaped by majority public opinion, no matter how detrimental the shaping may be for members of that society. When the prevailing beliefs of the public have been moulded by relentless propaganda from authority and expert alike, and embraced by a mass media that is of like mind, how can any truth penetrate? In the minds of the public, a belief (especially one that is emotionally appealing), will win above any rational truth.
If the authorities, experts and persuaders have an agenda which has its foundation in ideology, power, control, wealth and corruption, noble truth will be a weak warrior in a battle against these forces. I would like to dream that integrity and truth will prevail, but I must be pragmatic.
My strong curiosity in the whole AGW debate is what proportion of activists, advocates and alarmists are ideological fellow travellers, what proportion are opportunists, and what proportion are just gullible dupes – useful idiots?
I will repeat what I have said as this question comes up more and more:
Everybody remembers Eisenhower’s warning about the, “military-industrial complex,” shoot, it has become the siren call of some.
Few if any recall — and it is never repeated — the second of the two specific warning he made in that very same speech:
The scientific-technological elite, Eisenhower truly was prescient. Read the speech, it could have been written today.
DKK
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
This is from the “Military Industrial Complexe” speech, and seems to be more relevant now than ever. Funny how you never hear this part quoted.
Al Gore should be held legally responsible for in effect, yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Oh, boy, Anthony. Christopher Booker, in a nice article about the New York conference in the Telegraph in England, mistakes you for Steve McIntyre. Find the article most easily through RealClearPolitics.
================================
Whilst agreeing that, in a democracy, decisions should be taken by elected politicians, it is reasonable to expect them to listen to expert opinion. That said, what is the downside of taking Pascal’s wager with regard to curbing carbon emissions? If we attempt to reverse the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by the various means available (renewable energy sources, increased efficiency, higher insulation etc, etc) and Climate Change turns out to be unrelated to CO2, then we have conserved fossil fuel for future generations, perhaps will have cleaner air, developed new technologies… but if we do nothing and the worse predictions turn out to be true, the consequence for many on this planet today and many more in the future is bleak.
While I ostensibly detest politics, I believe that the issue has left the scientific arena and entered that of power and economics. Lawyers and legislators are now in control. Yes they will listen to scientific arguments, but only those lucid and brief.
Our one great boon is that the weather is within everyman’s wheelhouse and if we pay close attention to our audience we can influence the action. Thank God, the warmening is past, at least for my remaining span.
The US constitution restricts the federal government to a limited number of powers which are mostly spelled out in Article 1 Section 8. Nowhere does it say the government can ban light bulbs or provide subsidies for corn based ethanol. Unfortunately the people let the government out of that box long ago and now government feels it has the authority to do whatever it pleases. The real key to getting things back under control is to elect officials who will strictly ahdere to the constitution. ( By the way, Each and every member of the house, the senate, the white house and the courts takes an oath to uphold the constitution. But not many of them actually do that.)
As an off-the-cuff guesstimate, here’s my take:
10% ideological fellow travellers
20% opportunists
70% gullible dupes
GeorgeM — (And would someone explain to me why the mainstream media is so biased in this?)
The underlying problem is that reporters tend to be politically left, and the left seems to have made a career at presuming that it is smarter than the right. Many of the most vocal AGW posters (e.g. you can find them on NYT’s dotearth) also write on DailyKos and/or “green” sites advocating socialist and/or fascist political policy. The rational moderate democrat has been replaced over the years with the far left, and the modern left either has to embrace AGW and anti-war and so on or be lumped together with the anti-abortion, anti-science crowd.
Surely you can’t have missed the sneering tone from many/most of the AGW supporters equating skeptics with flat earthers, fundamentalists who think the world is 6000 years old and won’t abide by evolution, and so on. They think they’re battling dense sheep manipulated by the vast right wing big oil led conspiracy machine; it doesn’t really occur to them that skeptics can be as smart as they are and simply don’t agree with their conclusions.
Alan Fox — (That said, what is the downside of taking Pascal’s wager with regard to curbing carbon emissions? )
Bringing up the wager is indicative of not understanding the premise. The wager is premised on there not being a downside to belief, and this isn’t applicable in this situation. If Pascal bets there is a god nothing happens as a consequence if the bet is wrong.
If we DO SOMETHING NOW (i.e. equating to the bet there is a god) there could be an unintended consequence as we don’t truly understand what we’re doing.
In other words Pascal’s wager doesn’t apply, can’t apply, and I cringe every time I hear this brought up.
I’d like to point out that there is a huge difference between scientific skepticism and being a pro bono lobbyist for the coal/oil/gas industries. I personally welcome Antony’s website because he adds a good discussion to the science, especially with surfacestations.org. There is very little to no discussion of different viewpoints going on in the AGW community that I can see, so a skeptical look at the data is important.
There is definite danger in the scientific community being beholden to the public coffers, but what the the alternatives if you value science in society? The science could be beholden to the bottom line of publicly traded companies, would the truth come out then? And private funds that would support science could also have some sort of bias–think of the big science institutions funded by the Carnegies and Rockefellers. If science was completely beholden to current private funds with the benefactors still alive, might it be somehow subject to bias?
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it”
~ H L Mencken
Drew Latta — (If science was completely beholden to current private funds with the benefactors still alive, might it be somehow subject to bias?)
I figure one can’t claim bias merely due to corporate sponsorship. Many misrepresent the “follow the grant money” observations about academia; they respond to these with a sneering tone suggesting that the observer assumes the professors receiving grants are lining their pockets. If you say “follow the grant money” you get laughed at as if you’re trying to make the case that professors are getting rich from the proceeds.
Obviously the observers are pointing out that grant recipients are gaining power and prestige within their fields; this is far better than mere money.
The upshot is that infighting for prestige has just as much a potential for bias as corporate sponsorship. And in my opinion, power/prestige is far more abused — corporate sponsored research has more riding on the outcome of being wrong. Academics can be wrong but regarded as important; e.g. look at Paul Ehrlich, who’s still a respected prof despite being laughably wrong in his predictions of worldwide famines in the 80’s.