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.
I’m sorry but I own the comparison between pascals wager and the precautionary principle. When I first floated this notion it caused a meltdown at Tamino’s Open Mind, which was apparently closed for repairs and has since lost it’s mind.
Anyway, if a scientist told you that an asteroid was going to hit the earth in 2100, destroying all mankind would you let him and him alone decide what to do? would you let 50 scientists decide? 1000? ,2500 ?
WHO gets to decide. I’d carpe deim. that’s my choice
I’d party like it’s 2099.
REPLY: Having seen it in virgin prose over there on {insert adjective of choice here} mind, I certify that Mosh owns the “comparison between pascals wager and the precautionary principle” – Anthony
The truth about the reality of global warming has already been disclosed by the meticulous record keepers, those who. without a political agenda, have always been the real scientists. Gregor Mendel was one such person, ignored in his own time. Only a fool would deny the present crisis and God knows there are enough of them. Cyberdumb is crawling with them.
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable…..Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
John A Davison
john.a.davison.free.fr/
REPLY: You mean like where the “meticulous records” taken in nonstandard measurement environments are then adjusted by the “meticulous record keepers” to make the past cooler, increasing the temperature trend, such as in these two examples?
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-52-another-ufa-sighted-in-arizona/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/
…or maybe the university atmospheric sciences department where they measure the climate of the parking lot out front?
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-24/
Of course only us “fools” would question such things in the climate record. Look around Mr. Davison, your lack of research into the issue beyond reciting what is commonly seen in the MSM doesn’t play well here. Try evolving your argument a bit yourself.
I believe there’s supposed to be an “almost” in front of that “always”.
And Flannery knows this how? What part of Paleontology gives him this mystical knowledge?
Suing for carbon credits? Toward what end? That would just make Al a maryter, and this “scientific” debate has too many religious undertones already.
Clearly the Earth isn’t burning. Clearly there is no such thing as a runaway greenhouse effect. Clearly the climate science is perpetrating a fraud.
There won’t be any recourse for us via the vote. Machinations by the media will quash any politician who bucks the consensus.
Our only recourse is the court.
Instead of trying to sue Al Gore for his carbon credits, I propose we attack the source of the climate change resurgence. As Lord Monckton did for English schools, we need to attack “an inconvenient truth” and have it banned outright from public schools, or heavily editted to conform with reality before it is fit for presentation as a teaching tool.
The media coverage from this action will be enough to open up the field politically, then we will see change.
Large grants from Soros and the Kerrys doesn’t hurt either.
Mr Davidsion,
You say:
“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. ”
Please try to finally understand that Michael Mann’s HOCKEY STICK curve has been exposed as a FARCE. The temperatures are not rising dramatically. Look at the satellite data.
Concerning your predictions of doom and gloom, I have yet to find a single scientist, naturalist or alarmist who is ready to put money down on the scenarios they are “sure” will happen. Why aren’t any of you ready to put money down on your science? Have you so little confidence?
If you truly believe and have faith in your “scientific” predictions, then put your money down.
I say that sea levels will not rise more than 7 cm over the next 10 years, i.e. about 2 feet over the next 100 years (Gore claims 20 ft.!). I’m ready to bet a hefty sum of money on this. How much are you ready to put down?
Come on my friend! Either you put up, or shut up. What’s it gonna be?
I suppose what saddens me the most is that when it is realized that we aren’t headed for catastrophic warming, our information sources will simply go silent on the subject rather than attempt to do any honest education of the public. I suppose it is the realization that I hold that cynical view of those who would inform that is so sad to me. I was brought up with the notion of a free and fair press and in the striving to find the truth and a naive belief that reporters were searching for truth and not simply pushing an agenda. And now it appears that the real press isn’t the traditional press at all. It is Orwellian.
The saddest thing of all is that I am now not likely to believe anything I read on ANY subject let alone the subject of climate.
And so the problem is larger than “who decides”, it becomes “who decides” and “on what basis”. Who decides what information is accurate enough to be used to make a decision with? So far the only data I would trust to make a decision is the satellite measurements and they don’t go very far back. I am certainly not going to believe anything put out by a surface station network.
re: Steven Mosher
“Anyway, if a scientist told you that an asteroid was going to hit the earth in 2100…”
Like this one?
“Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/208/4448/1095
Mr. Davison,
Sorry for misspelling your name.
My challenge to bet is addressed to you.
I don’t wish to turn Anthony’s website here into a casino, but please tell us at which sea level rise you are willing to bet $100,000.00:
a) 24 inches in next 10 years (i.e. 20 feet soon like Gore says)
b) 3.0 inches in next 10 years (i.e. 30 in. in 100 years)
c) 2.0 inches in next 10 years (i.e. 20 in. in 100 years)
d) 1.0 inches in next 10 years (i.e. 10 in. in 100 years)
e) 0.5 inches in next 10 years (i.e. 5 in. in 100 years)
f) other (please specify)
Tell us on which of the above scenarios you are ready to bet this money on. I’m indeed very curious to know.
(Odds are he won’t even reply)
Not to mention the fact that the ONLY way to stop the rise of human-caused industrial CO2 is for ALL of us to return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. There simply is no other way. By Davison’s, and all the other alarmists, refusal to give up his computer at the very least, he and they show that they are nothing but hot air, and don’t really believe there is a problem.
AGWscoffer, a cowardly alias I see.
How could I arrange a wager with someone whose identity is a secret to everyone except himself? At eighty I will be unable to wait long to collect in any event. The name is Davison as in John Davison Rockefeller. You are obviously a useless, illiterate nothing. I recommend you “hold your piece” as you contribute absolutely nothing to this discussion.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
john.a.davison.free.fr/
hey Anthony, Did you know that in 1992 NCDC selected 138 stations as prime
stations.. See My post over at CA. JerryB confirms this and has the data.
It was the best 138 daily stations. selected by 4 criteria. later they expanded this to 1062 stations by relaxing the quality rules, and then to 1221 ( picking up monthly stations I think)
REPLY: I’ll check it out, what thread on CA?
[…] consensus,” as if it were the equal of scientific proof. That’s disturbing. (h/t Evan Jones blogging on […]
Alan,
Moshpit is having some fun with you. Anyone who has studied game theory and or apolegetics would see the parallel to pascals wager in a heartbeat.
It struck me as funny that people (AGWers) would invoke a form of this argument without a clear understanding of it’s historical background.
boomeranging rhetoric.
I’m just recalling a funny incident in past that I know Anthony will appreciate
now, since he’s taken some unfair heat at “the place” that shall not be mentioned.
Cheers buddy!
There is a downside. It isn’t even hidden.
But there are those that don’t see a 20% reduction in energy consumption equating to a severe stress on the production, transportation, and consumption of goods. That actually makes it an intended consequence.
The thing is, we know we don’t have a good handle on what we’re doing. Models published around 1999 show the temperature hockeystick skyrocketing for the term 1998-2008. Ten years later, actual data shows 1998-1999 as a drop, and the whole decade as essentially flat. Lifting a plot from the other thread, , the hockeystick would be entirely off that plot – except in the leftmost twelve months. Where it would be flying out the top of the scene.
Crosspatch, there never was an unbiased press. Mark Twain joked about it once in a book on the funny things kids say in school. One kid was asked to define a Republican and wrote, “A sinner mentioned in the Bible,” to which Twain added, “also in Democratic newspapers.”
—
Also, don’t denigrate the surface station network too much. It’s a fine network and not much worse than any other long term measurement system. The real problem is that it’s being used beyond its capabilities by looking for trends that are buried inside the error bars and are so small that the trends themselves have been biased as Anthony’s survey seems to indicate.
I say ‘seems’ because IIRC, only 33-50% have been surveyed and it’s unlikely that those surveyed were selected randomly, thus the survey may not be representative. That doesn’t mean the survey was deliberately biased. Some stations are easier to get to than others, which makes them likely to be visited first. Being close to where people live (i.e., urban proximity) would tend to make them easier to visit.
Yes, the survey so far isn’t promising but not all of the ‘votes’ are in. The next step after that would be to determine how much bias was imparted. But what the bias means is that the error bars will get wider which just means that trends below a certain magnitude will become harder to resolve unless a reasonable method of adjusting for it can be found.
And even if it turns out the bias is ZERO, the temperature record alone would be insufficient to establish any significant man-made causal effect on global warming.
M. Jeff.
Exactly. Let’s stipulate that Nasa scientists tells us that we will be hit
by an asteroid in 2100 and that it will destroy the earth. And this is
rocket science guys. This isnt climate models and weather stations on parking lots. This is F=MA. That rock is hittin our ball o dirt.
Does this scientist get to determine our policy toward armageddon?
Does he get to tell people how much money they have to invest to
avert a disaster that they wont be alive to see?
Should we give up everything to avert the disaster? Nothing? something?
how much? Should we try even if its impossible. That’s ethics, not rocket science.
So science has it’s place. just the facts maam.
For John A Davidson: Since the shift from Glacial to Interglacial conditions at the end of the last glaciation happened in ca 40 years I strongly doubt that the climate is changing 30 times faster now, even if Tim Flannery says so.
N. B. No human greenhouse gases were available 11600 years ago.
Ref: Taylor, K. C. et al.: 1997. The Holocene-Younger Dryas Transition recorded at Summit, Greenland. Science 278(5339):825-827.
“I’m sorry but I own the comparison between pascals wager and the precautionary principle.”
Buddha himself already argues in 6th century BC that regardless of whether the difficult concepts of rebirth and karma are valid, acting as if they are brings tangible rewards here and now.
Trying to keep up!
1.) Thanks for your kind words. Noted and appreciated.
2.) For all of those who want to sue, you have to be a little careful. (Not that I don’t feel your pain or nothin’.) What makes us WANT to sue is insufferability and arrogance. But one can’t sue for that. It’s free speech. One must prove actual fraud, not in a mere intellectual sense, but in a legal sense.
I admit that Al Gore has somewhat the same responsibility of St. Mac’s mine owner to make a good faith assay before hawking (alleged) snake oil. But that is a rather heavy burden of proof—and that knife cuts both ways. That is not to say that one should concede the field. Remember, most people started out believing in Paul Ehrlich and Dennis Meadows. But that pair did not prevail in the legislative arena.
3.) For a cut-down version::
–Delete all examples: paragraphs. 2, 4 and everything after 11 except the last one.
For a REALLY cut-down version:
–go with the first sentence of each paragraph, only!
Minor errors I should have caught:
Para 3, line 3, delete comma before “recently”
Para 5, line 1, change “advice in” to “advice is”
Para 8, line 1, delete comma after “Experts”
Para 13, line 4, End the sentence in a question mark: (political causes”? )
4.) I agree with the rejection of Pascal’s conundrum. Paul Ehrlich tried to pull that one in 1968, and my answer now is the same as my answer then. (And it is the same answer given in the above comments.)
I propose a reverse-Pascal. Go ahead full guns burning fossil fuel (esp. India/China) and build up massive world affluence and technology. Then the crisis, if it exists at all, will probably be very easy to solve. (I like the mammoth-Mylar-reflector-in-space idea. It can be adjusted as needed and is not irrevocable such as seeding the atmosphere with gunk. It may not yet practical, but soon will be.) and who know, a fuel alternative may pop up long before then (fusion, maybe? Hydrogen? Whatever.) without sacrificing trillions a year (which would condemn the poor to continuing poverty).
I.e., we should not try to dodge the crisis; we can outrun it, plain and simple.
5.) The courts and the legislatures may or may not “help”. But it is there where the decisions must be made, not in the laboratory. We may decide wrong. But we also can adjust, midway. (AGW, even if “true”, is NOT a frantic, imminent emergency, caterwauling to the contrary.)
6.) Big names have signed on. But basic facts and factors, not names, will affect my thoughts on the matter. I want the points of view and alleged facts on that side of that postcard, not a list of celebrities. What Carlisle says it true—but the reverse of what he says is true, also.
7.) I must also point out, as many have before, that there have been enough false cries of wolf (all with a suspiciously similar solution) to cause me to hesitate before making serious sacrifices that will affect me, personally, not so much (I may have to change lightbulbs), but the world’s poor very much (they will remain poor).
8.) I don’t mind a brainstorming session—so long as it remains within the realm of table-pounding (i.e., free speech, and not gratuitous harassment. As I said, the harassment knife cuts both ways.
9.) politicians will make decisions and form policy based on the prevailing majority public opinion
Majority and supermajority rule is what we’ve got. If we’re lucky. It beats the alternative. Better mob rule than lab rule. (I will be in there swinging.)
10.) Agree with Ike on bureaucrats and scientific-technological elite. (I have my gripes about his military-industrial complex speech, however!) I also mostly agree with Mencken; he had a shrewd understanding of human nature.
11.) I note the lining up of the AGW debate with “like policies”. I think this is human nature, but I strive to judge the AGW debate on its merits and not its personalities.
12.) I worry about the grant money.
13.) The Rev is right. We need due diligence. We need to regard resistance to due diligence with a very jaundiced eye. And I think the PDO is in better correlation with 20th century weather patterns than CO2, though I do not entirely discount CO2 as a factor. Rate of change does not alarm me as it does others. Man’s CAPABILITIES are undergoing an even greater rate of change. Our capability to deal with climate is increasing faster than the globe is warming. (Unless we cripple those capabilities by wasteful diversion.)
14.) Re betting. You’d think that if they were 90% sure, they’d give us 5-1 odds, no?
15.) Yes, if the MSM is wrong, it will go silent. Same as with population and resources. But that is the way of the wicked world. Besides, they’ve kicked up such a massive fuss that the silence will speak more loudly than it did previously. And if that comes to pass, the skeptics sure as heck won’t be silent!
replace the word “experts” (or “scientists”) with “philosophers” and you will find that this idea is exactly what plato said 2360 years ago. nothing new under the sun. and still wrong! read karl popper book “the open society and its enemies” where that idea is destroyed, the book, 60 years old, is still actual, and a must read
Prof. John A. Davison,
Lol! That’s the reaction I usually get when I demand a bet. They shoot in a last word, and run for the exit like a bat out of climate hell. But I’m not giving up on you.
Pierre L. Gosselin is my name, and it’s a pleasure to meet you.
Are you ready to do business now?
So, what will it be?
…a, b, c, d, e or f ?
Don’t disappoint me now. Ya’ll telling us the planet’s gonna heat right up and do a whole lot of awful things to us and the polar bears.
No deal?
Don’t feel bad…Gavin Schmidt also refused to bet, and ran.
AGW aint the crisis here, it’s all that hot empty air emitting from the mouths of people like you.
Fox — (So there is no expected downside to attempting to reduce the rate of increase in carbon emissions other than possible “unintended” consequences.)
I didn’t say that, and I’m not interested in rehashing the well worn and otherwise absurdly obvious sociopolitical consequences of it.
Pascal’s wager only works when there is nothing that can be lost. You can’t conjure up new meanings for “nothing.” Suffice to say that pascal’s wager doesn’t have squat to do with the present situation and leave it at that. You can’t invoke it because it simply doesn’t apply and isn’t in context.
Time to find a new argument, Mr. Fox — one that is logically consistent.