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.
‘You are obviously a useless, illiterate nothing. I recommend you “hold your piece” as you contribute absolutely nothing to this discussion.’ ~ johnny davidson
Johnny, that statement alone answers any and all questions about you. Henceforth you shall be IGNORED as the leftist agw hystericyst that you are.
Heck Evan,
They’re 90+% sure, and I’m offering them even 1:1 odds!
You’d think they’d be jumping all over this hot deal.
Maybe in their language…
“very likely” really means 30% chance
“likely” really means 10%
“unlikely” really means “no chance!”
They gotta be living in an awfully confusing world.
Prof. Davision: The money could go to charity.
Good article. Unfortunately it ends with a premise the weakness of which explains why so little headway is possible against the public mind that is carefully tracked by the policy making politicians. Details on georgerebane.com.
Mr REPLY
I do not argue and I do not try to convince. Arguments and debates are for lawyers, politicians, evangelists and congenital atheists like Pharyngula Z. “godless liberal” Myers, Christopher “hiccup” Hitchens and Richard “blind mountainering watchmaker” Dawkins, all of whom have abandoned the real world to dedicate the rest of their useless lives to the cause of Universal Altheism.
I am a scientist with a PhD which I earned in 1954, probably before you were born. Facts and facts alone are what matter. Not a word that I have published has been challenged in the refereed journal literature in which I published it. Only on internet blogs am I denigrated, lectured to, and baned. Everything we “really know,” cold hard facts, plead for a disastrous future. Those who choose to ignore or challenge those facts are fools. It is as simple as that.
I recommend you consult the weather reports and then tell me or anyone else that we have nothing to worry about. Records fall daily for precipitation amounts, high winds, tornados, blizzards and flooding as abnormally warm moisture laden Gulf air collides with arctic cold fronts to wreak havoc across the United States. A cold year was to be expected as Polar ice continues to melt. The 80 calories per gram that requires was drawn from the atmosphere. God they are now gowing broccoli in Greenland which some are si
It is hard to believe isn’t it.
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
john.a.davison.free.fr/
Mr. Reply says:
I have only one thing I can say that refutes the immutable logic and clear understanding of fact that you demonstrated above and below, and that is: “Nuts!“
Sorry I didn’t get to finish so I will do it here.
(si)lly enough to flaunt as a good thing! DaveScot/David Springer did exactly that over at Uncommon Descent. That kind of mentality is really scary. When ideology confronts facts, ideology may carry the day but will never win the war for the truth.
Thanks.
Mr. Reply says: you are welcome.
I agree with your assessment. Ego and prestige are much bigger drivers in most scientific communities than money, and most private sourced and corporate sourced grant money is probably pretty free from heavy-handedness. Generally the funding source doesn’t much matter, I agree, I was just asking those questions thinking if only one type of funding existed. Its more likely that when transparency in methods and reporting fails to materialize there are problems.
However, the business-as-usual attitude towards energy is flat out dumb sure, its relatively cheap and easy now to use fossil reserves, but what about 20+ years in the future?
The real question is: if AGW isn’t real and the data supports it, what is our energy future? Do we continue to invest money in researching alternative energy sources and more efficient ways to use energy? Or do we say, “Meh, who cares, its not going to hurt anything to continue to use long-term unsustainable mineral reserves?” I personally prescribe to the precautionary principle on the AGW issue. No need to panic, but lets start doing something to move down the road to non-fossil energy and more sustainable ways of doing things. There are other benefits to not producing fossil CO2 than just supposed greenhouse warming. Its common sense in my mind.
Mr Reply in bold type.
I note that you found it necessary to close the other thread on which I was commenting. How any times have you had to resort to that tactic and do you intend to do it with this thread too? I have no intention of allowing anyone to muzzle me without exposing it every time it occurs. I spread my heresies wherever I am allowed, supremely confident of my positions both on global warming and organic evolution which I regard as the two most pressing issues of our time. As for claiming that Tim Flannery is not a climatologist – that is like saying that Gregor Mendel was not a geneticist. His book, “The Weather Makers” is the most significant summary available on the CAUSE of global warming. That it is occurring is not to be questioned and in my opinion neither is the cause – steadily increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Everythig else is negligible in comparison.
There is an interesting parallel between the factions debating organic evolution and those debating global warming. In both instances there is no question that both have occurred. The only issue is the MECHANISM. It is the MECHANISM that is the province of science which is all that I am interested in and I will continue, wherever I am allowed, to offer what I believe those MECHANISMS to be.
Any port in a storm and the devil take the hindmost.
“Mankind fiddles whle earth burns.”
john.a.davison.free.fr/
Dang, I have to recalibrate my arrogant ass meter. I thought I was god’s gift to humanity.
REPLY: No you’re God’s gift to oblate spheroids. 😉
Stay, but warned that hijacking will not be ALLOWED! Stick to the specific subject of the thread. His passion does not trump that of others!
Re: Davison: He’s already lost his mind, so his replies and our replies to him serve no purpose. Boot him off.
What I find hard to believe is that YOU actually believe this crap. Again, why haven’t you given up your techno lifestyle? No answer? I didn’t think so. You’re a hypocrite, plain and simple.
Show me these daily falling records. Are they right next the list of thousands of species which go extinct every year? Or the hundreds of thousands who supposedly die every year due to “climate change”?
Records mean nothing. They only show that our ability to detect has gotten better. 100 years ago we would have had no idea about half the tropical cyclones which occurred simply because no one saw them. The same with rainfall, high winds, floods, droughts, etc at nauseum. These things have always occurred, and as more deadly events than they are now. The only difference is 24 hours news, satellites monitoring the surface of the planet, aircraft everywhere. More people to see and detect these so-called record events. Show me some proof or shut the hell up. SHEESH!
Drew Latta: “No need to panic, but lets start doing something to move down the road to non-fossil energy and more sustainable ways of doing things.”
What about nuclear fission. We have it, it’s clean and it’s safe. Zero CO2 emissions. There is no problem with it. It’s “green” as it can be. It is cost effective. The only thing wrong with it is that it’s not politically correct. Why is that? I don’t know. Do you?
REPLY: Four reasons: 1) The China Syndrome 2) Silkwood 3) Three Mile Island 4) Chernobyl
They all scared the pants off everybody.
Mr. Reply says: When the thread becomes all about you, rather than the original topic, it becomes pointless to continue it. I suspect that most of the other blog operators have banned you not because of your views, but because you hijack threads regularly, just like you are doing to this one.
You M.O. has been that it tends to become all about you and your views, and not about the topic at hand.
So I’ll be democratic about it. Fellow blog citizens, lets have a show of hands!
On the question of John A. Davison, stay or leave the island?
This whole damn blog is about global warming and that is exactly what I have been talking about. Now finish up your polling and make a decision. Don’t make the decision yourself. Pass the buck to your drooling, mostly anonymous, mindless clients to do it for you. You have some real beauties gracing what is supposed to be a forum on global warming. This is not a forum. It is just one more “groupthinktank” like Pharyngula, Panda’s Thumb, EvC, Uncommon Descent and RichardDawkins.net
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
John A. Davison
john.a.davison.free.fr/
REPLY: Ok thanks for helping this decision along. Lets look again at one of your very first posts, which I’ll repeat here for posterity.
Considering the circumstances, I must recuse myself. But, seeing as how I have a direct interest, I’d just as soon keep in vaguely on-topic. Not that I’m a topic cop or anything.
But danger to society relates to what needs to be done (or not) and therefore to who decides it. And I’d have to say loss of land weighs heavily. If it gets too warm, we lose land to SL rise. If it gets too cold, we lose land to ice.
The Who Decides issue comes into it when one considers it is a different ox being gored in either event.
That brings internationalism into it. We already have two layers: public and legislators + judges. Legislators are (in theory) our mouthpieces. Judges are the referees, who enforce the rules. But if we add treaties into it that adds another layer. .
Treaties are sometimes necessary. And for them to be meaningful, compliance is necessary. But they are further removed from the public than normal law, and supercede it in much the same way federal law trumps state or local law. And if we keep adding layers, eventually democracy becomes mere oligarchy, especially if treaties come with their own organizations and “commissions” composed of unelected officials.
(BTW, my SL bet is “e”. In fact, if PDO indicators mean anything, there may not be much of any rise at all. We could be entering a bit of a cooling phase. In any case, not even the IPCC thinks there’s going to be much in the way of melt over the next century–most of their estimate is thermal expansion.)
“Leave the island” please.
One other problem with fission. Compared with coal and oil, it ain’t cheap (IIRC about 2x the cost). As for safety, those new pellet reactors are a work of common-sense genius.
I think the solution (if it comes to that) will yield to tech and wealth. So I am in favor of tech and wealth, even if it does involve burning more coal and oil for the next two or three decades. The disadvantage of selling this point is that it is counterintuitive. The advantage is that is basically involves “doing nothing” (i.e., business as usual), and mankind generally has an inclination to do that.
Of course, if you count the number of people who have died in Coal Mining over the years, the nuclear problem pales in comparison.
And, if we don’t keep trying we’ll never get better, meaning safer and more efficient.
Re: Leave or stay
Leave. I have not a lot of time on my hands and I just wasted too much of it wading through that dreck.
Drew Latta — (The real question is: if AGW isn’t real and the data supports it, what is our energy future? )
Simple. Spaceborne solar. We already know how to do this. Nothing new needs to be invented, and a supply of Unobtanium isn’t required. What does need to happen is engineering expertise, like building like structures in space. (Oh my, perhaps that’s what the ISS is *really* doing for the US — giving us a platform we can test techniques with and learn from. Maybe it ain’t quite the boondoggle everyone says it is.)
Now, before you dump all over this with the obvious conclusion that a spaceborne power sat needs 35 sq km (pick any ridiculously big number) of solar arrays, PV isn’t the only way to harvest energy. In fact there are other tests the US has conducted besides the ISS — oops I meant to say that there are sats powered by things other than PV… e.g. we have some sats powered by stirling engines. Heat. The sun spits out a lot of that, too. In short, I’ll reiterate: We know how to harvest solar energy in space and get it to earth. It’s merely engineering details that need to be solved. And frankly it appears that they’re being solved.
I don’t worry about future energy needs; there’s a fairly big ball of burning hydrogen about 93 million miles off, and this puts out a lot more energy than we need. People yakking about wind and such are IMnotveryHO are not overly bright and they’re chasing rainbows. None of that stuff is scalable, so it hardly matters even if it works well enough. Perhaps this is a good thing because it gives them something to do rather than stand in the way. Let them natter on about enviromentally happy fluffy bunnies and let the rocket scientists do their thing.
Let him stay. Just as the mechanism for the development of the ‘irreducible complexities’ is unknown, so is the mechanism by which the sun’s output is magnified into climate changes. Think about that one, John.
============================
randomengineer – really interesting idea, spaceborne solar energy. In defense of wind, it seems to work really well in developing countries that lack the infrastructure to supply power over distance. Setting up a windmill and generator is cheaper and faster (by many years) than waiting for power lines and a grid.
I don’t have a problem with Dr. Davidson staying. I haven’t read anything that he’s written that deserves a response, though, so anyone who engages him is just pissin’ up a waterfall.
I’ve been thinking about the topic of this thread all day, and the one thought I keep coming back to is a statement that Bob Carter made to me in an email last fall in response to my question to him about how he thought this whole debate would eventually shake out.
I’ve posted the whole of Dr. Carter’s message before, but this one statement seems apropos to the topic of this thread:
There’s no doubt in my mind who’s going to be making the decisions. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
I think it would be extremely dangerous to rely on extremely fragile systems like space based solar. A stray meteor or a massive solar flare could knock the entire array out and plunge the planet into a dark age – literally and figuratively. A similar problem exists with nuclear plants which take a lot of time to restart if they need to be shutdown for some reason. The power outage on the east coast a few years ago was exacerbated because it took so long to restart Ontario’s nuclear plants.