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.
The issue of regulating CO2 emissions will end up in court. It will have nothing to do with Al gore, melting ice, or drowning bears. It will be over observed data vs. computer model (CO2 induced global warming) and how our goverment (US) handles the Data Quality Act and the Supreme Court ruling based of sound science.
Anthony, regarding the banning of trolls, I’d rather just see them go unfed. It’s entertaining and sometimes even thought-provoking to read their first posts. However, when they get a snippy reply they go into rant mode and get tedious. Just ignore and they’ll go back under their bridges most of the time.
SIR!
Those types can be very easy to convince. They have never heard the other side. When they do–and it MUST be done in reasonable terms–it hits them like a sledgehammer.
If you start out with, “X is a fraud,” you have half-lost the battle off the post. If you star out with, “I’m not so sure about X and I have my reasons,” you often can get a fair hearing and second thoughts.
Also remember that there is almost always damage when “sacrifices are made” in a mistaken cause or in an ineffective manner. One cannot undo the past. One must instead attempt to undo the damage and make sure the lkesson is learned.
But we start getting into the distasteful subject of the dialectic around now . . . pretty soon I start up with the “Tactics, Comrades, tactics” routine and all I really want is the story told simply, straight, and from both sides.
Which is fine, but people like Davison, by his own admission, doesn’t want to debate, he wants to declare, and if we don’t bow down, then we’re all against him in some conspiriatorial way. I really couldn’t care less whether someone has a Phd or not. I’ve known some very well-educated people who had zero common sense.
I’d let Johnny stay, but just shun him. Like the crazy old aunt that you keep in the cellar, let him sit there and ramble, unchallenged. How do you argue with someone who is peerless anyway? (He is … just ask him!)
We can always find the lad on the web if we suffer pain from his dismissal here. Cut the noise(maker).
Re: Leave or stay
He should stay of course.
It is always a good thing when someone comes along and repeats again and again how he is so much better then me because his mother squeezed him out of her uterus before my mother mother squeezed me out of her uterus.
Indeed his sole argument seems to be that he was born in the 1920’s.
For the record, I was once a believer, then neutral. Now I no longer believe in AGW, but my mind remains open. If proof comes along, it will no doubt sway me.
Prof. Davison seems to have a very closed mind for a scientist. Is that how science works these days?
1) One’s mind is made up.
2) One searches for the papers and facts to support it.
3) One ignores any evidence to the contrary.
That is religion, not science.
Pressed submit too soon->
The Phd physicist I eat lunch with most work days is an AGW-denier. Naturally his opinion doesn’t matter as he was born after Prof Davison.
There is no “other side,” and there is no “debate”. There is only hard reality that matters: the kind of reality that is being revealed daily by 3000 weather stations and recorded continuously for over a half century at the station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. I cannot duplicate my GLOBAL WARMING thread here but I invite everyone to comment on my blog where they can be certain they won’t be treated with the kind of arrogant contempt that I am receiving here.
The truth of the matter is that those who frequent the typical internet weblog are terrified at the prospect of presenting their views in a neutral venue. That is especially true of the blog owners who pretend their critics do not exist. Sometimes they will send their “goons squads” out to do everything they can to denigrate their adversaries but mostly they let those “goons” do the denigrations right at home where they do everything in their power to discourage any departure from the ideology of the blog owner.
I love the crap I take from some of the local “goons” here and elsewhere, especially the ones that are stupid enough to use their real names. I collect their venom and publish it on #71 on my WHY BANISHMENT? thread. Anonymous blowhards are beneath my contempt and serve only to degrade the quality of the forum they inhabit, so I don’t even bother collecting their vitriol. This weblog sure has its share of them. Most blogs do.
“Birds of a feather flock together.”
Cervantes
“Conscience does make cowards of THEM all.”
after Shakespeare
I love it so!
SOCKITTOME
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
john.a.davison.free.fr/
I do believe johnny is the kinsella of global warming.
Let him stay, I guess. Every court needs its jester.
If Prof Davision refuses to tell us at what sea level he’d be willing to put down real money, and continues to emit hot air, then I say boot him out.
Either he puts up, or shuts up.
[…] Watts Up With That | Who Decides? […]
To go back to his original post:
Sez Mr. Davison
I, too, remain deeply impressed by the moral and scientific authority of these politicians.
Further, sez he
I also find that ignoring contrary evidence supports my arguments enormously.
I have found that ignoring Lord Kelvin’s (a fine scientist and president of the Royal Society) conclusion that heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible, is equally inadvisable.
Mr. Davison, your opinions are risible.
Let him stay. He serves as a good example of what many of us believed before we became more informed on various issues.
So we’re stupid if we use our real names, and blowhards if we use an alias. I see. In your little putrid world we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Collect all the venom you like. We’ve got yours collected here. And it exposes you for the senile old dotard that you are.
REPLY: Ok no more feeding the troll. Just let it go
There is no “other side,” and there is no “debate”. There is only hard reality that matters: the kind of reality that is being revealed daily by 3000 weather stations
Well, that’s part of the problem. The raw data is adjusted upwards. (NOAA adjusts .3°C over the 20th century; GISS probably more.)
Then there is the siting of the stations, the station history adjustment (SHAP) and the fill-in of missing data from surrounding stations (FILENET, still a great mystery), and highly dubious UHI adjustment. I’ll take the TOBS adjustment on it’s face–for now–though I’m not so sure I should (the theory is sound, but practice has been lacking).
The stations were designed for weather last/next week, not for tenths of a degree over a century–that overwhelms the MoE.
And the PDO cycle corresponds better with the 20th century fluctuations than does the current CO2 rise–assuming the ice core proxies are accurate, which I am starting to look at. (That makes sense as the ocean is denser than the atmosphere and has a lot more joules at its desposal.)
CO2 plays a role, but as to how much of a role is highly disputed. It’s anywhere from 8% to 30% of the Greenhouse Effect, according to the “debaters”.
And while satellites use an independent measure, I am stuill curious as to how the proxy is converted.
Furthermore, the temps have not matched the models ever since those models were developed.
That is my “side of a postcard” take on it. (I could have done it in fewer words.)
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/5FCF1F4A-73C4-495A-96B4-F982E1AC8CF1.html
Alan Fox, randomengineer, stevemosher et al, the above is a post by Phillip Stott on Global Warming Politics.
It’s well worth reading
I say boot the senile bipolar royal loon snotbag believer in Gaia,
aka Johnny “the debate is over” Davison.
Mr Davison has an outstanding sense of irony. He claims people will not be treated with contempt on his own blog, while he is the treating people with contempt. He chastises people for using their real name and threatens to ‘out’ them, and when they use an alias he calls them cowards and beneath his contempt.
He then quotes: “birds of a feather flock together” as if that is supposed to mean something. Judging by the frequency of his posts in this blog, we are all flocking with him?
But my favourite section of his recent vitriolic rant:
“Sometimes they will send their “goons squads” out to do everything they can to denigrate their adversaries but mostly they let those “goons” do the denigrations right at home where they do everything in their power to discourage any departure from the ideology of the blog owner.”
My dear sir, you have described the actions of those that worship at the alter of AGW perfectly. Why you are living proof.
Please can you tell us how the data from the 3000 weather stations you mention can be valid if so many of the currently surveyed ones show such a heat bias and that trend continues amongst the unsurveyed ones? And while you are at it, can you explain why the raw data has been rejected in favour of making the past colder to make the present appear warmer?
Sigh, please ignore the typo.
(moonbat)”Democracy failed long ago. The EEEEEVVVIILLL robber barons subverted it, and now, the only way to put things right, is for THE PEOPLE to rise up as a dictatorship of the prolitariat.”(/moonbat)
Miscolczi!
Gesundheit.
========
Mr. Davidson,
Since your entire argument relies on an appeal to authority, could you point me to your 5 most recent peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic of climate change?
Thanks.
Martin, whoever that is and I suspect we will never know. Anonymous blowards like you are a dime a dozen. They never contribute anything of substance anywhere they surface.
Opinions mean absolutely nothing. All that matters in the world of science is hard indisputable data. The source of my conclusions is the records revealed by 3000 weather stations which collectively indicate a drastic alteration in the world’s climate. All the bar graphs and pie charts in the world do not matter a fig. El Nino, La Nina and all the other manifestations of the world’s weather are not primary causes. They are the effects of a single overwhelming primary cause which is the constantly increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Those that ignore this reality are fools.
Opinions, debates and conjecture have no place in science and never did have. No advance was ever influenced by debate or discussion and many have been retarded by it. Denial of an anthropogenic global warming and the mindless support for Godless Darwinian mysticism are two perfect examples.
On my GLOBAL WARMING thread I present links to the only sources that matter, the silent testimony of the Mauna Loa station, the 3000 or so world’s weather stations and the correlations that can be drawn from that hard data . Anyone who is not shocked at the changes in the world’s climate is not an objective observer of the natural world and their denial should be held up for all to see which is exactly what I have been doing and will continue to do.
As for the insults which continue here and elsewhere, they will find their way to my message #71 on my WHY BANISHMENT? thread. Don’t worry Martin, yours will not appear. I do not honor cowards who must hide their identity, only those who are stupid, unprincipled and arrogant enough to divulge it.
Incidentally Martin, whoever you are, it is Dr., not Mr. Davison and has been for 54 years.
I love it so!
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
When I first read the post that mentioned the several politicians that had identified the crisis, I thought the poster was joking, so risible was the citation; Thatcher, for the record, embarked on a campaign to crush the British Coal miners in 1983, and commisioned a scientist (Tickle, if I remember correctly), to ‘prove’ that emissions from coal caused global warming. It is also well known that her PR advisor advocated that she carve out a niche in an area which would be difficult for other European leaders to challenge – she has a degree in biochemistry you see – and the platform of environmentalism was ideal for this.
Blair, is simply one of the most disgraceful political leaders of not only mine, but any generation. Blair stood – and still stands – for one thing – Tony Blair. I don’t want to dilute the thread any more, but these figures quoted are all politicians, so what’s the point?
If quoting political figures is an argument, then I would like to quote the Czech president – Klaus. He alone recognised that the ‘problem’ of AGW is a fraud.
And if the weight of argument is a function of the number of persons cited, I call on Richard Lindzen, Timothy Ball, Fred Singer, Lubos Motl, Roger Pielke.
Apart from this non sequitar, I believe that the recent trend in rising temperatures is solar driven. If there it is in fact due to greenhouse gases as warmists claim, there should be a ‘fingerprint’ of a hot spot in the mid troposphere, but there is none. Correlation does not imply cause and effect, and the fact the CO2 can absorb long range IR does not tell us how much doubling CO2 levels will raise temperatures. Steve McIntyre has challenged anyone to produce a definitive engineering quality paper on the sensitivity of temperatures to CO2, and guess what? None has been produced.
Any assertions such as ‘AGW is bleedin’ obvious’, ‘only a fool would dispute it’, ‘weather records are being broken all the time’, is not science. I’m sorry, but the case for AGW is weak. So I’ll shut up now.
Good night
“All the worlds a stage”, W. Shakespeare.