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.
I have offered my explanation for the recent cold year. It results from the energy absorption of the 80 calories per gram that is required to convert each gram of ice to water at 0 C. That energy had to come from somewhere. It came primarily from the atmosphere.
Here is a simple experiment that will illustrate what I mean. Place a 50 pound block of supercooled (say minus 20 C.) ice in bucket in a small unheated closet. Close the door, start the clock and periodically determine the air temperature. I predict that the air tempertaure will drop only slightly until the ice begins to melt and will then begin to drop precipitously and will continue to drop until the ice is nearly all melted. Then of course it will slowly rise to its original level.
This present trend toward cooling will probably continue for some time but it most certainly does not herald a new cold period of any great duration. That is inconceivable as both poles and the Greenland ice sheet are actively melting and glaciers are receding all over the world. What we are witnessing is a only a transient phenomenon, fully predictable based on the heat of fusion of water, 80 calories per gram. As continental ice melts and the water reaches the sea, the ocean temperatures will also drop slightly but not for long. We all know what will happen WHEN, NOT IF, substantial amounts of continental ice melts. It is happening as I type. Sea levels will rise and coastal cities will be abandoned. It is only a matter of time and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent it.
I was surprised that Flannery didn’t include this interpretation in his “The Weather Makers” because it is obvious to me that is what we are currently observing. Huge hunks of Antarctic ice are breaking off and tumbling into the sea and Arctic sea ice continues to thin. Glaciers are receding world wide and precipitation amounts continue to rise world wide. These are realities not to be denied. I am convinced that part of the increase in rainfall and snowfall is due to the water produced by the oxidation of fossil fuels as well as, to a much lesser extent, the water produced by nearly seven billion large mammals and the livestock they cultivate for their survival. No animal in the history of the earth ever approached the biomass of Homo sapiens. There are around 7 billion chickens and billions more of cattle, pigs, goats and sheep as well. It is ecologically absurd to imagine that such a situation could survive for long even if there were no CO2 and H2O vapor dominating the climate changes. It has all taken place over the last two centuries and a large fraction of it in the last 50 years. The Industrial Revolution, followed by the Age of Technology, the terminal age for our civilization, have created this nightmare by allowing our numbers to increase a hunded fold, and with it the energy consuming, CO2 producing technology that made those numbers possible. In my opinion man made CO2 and H2O, both greenhouse gases, are the primary cause of it all. All other factors pale in comparison.
It is a mystery to me that so few of us recognize what an utterly untenable and dismal situation the planet now faces. It often seems to me to be a giant cosmic joke. If it is –
“La commedia e finita.”
Pagliacci
“Mankind fiddled while earth burned.”
Dr. Davidson mentioned being unable to find earthworms. It is my understanding that earthworms are not native to North America, and that they are steadily making their way across the continent. Dr. D., were worms previously found in the area of Mississippi where you tried to find them?
Dr. Davison: Only one problem with your experiment. The closed closet with ice in a bucket is a closed linear system while the earth is an open active non-linear system.
That’s like comparing apples and aardvarks.
Much of the earth’s surface would freeze in a matter of days if it were not for solar input. So many forget that important variable.
Just love these greenhousers who are off their face with CO2 original sin, and who ignore anything and everything outside the troposphere. Perhaps John A , truly can dispose of his pollutants, like CO2 by breathing over some roses and carnations who would conveniently just love him. …. but that would be sinfully connecting with nature.
I see this ice in a bucket example, as someone doing his best with this now obsolete assumption of finite universal causality. This is the single underlining problem with this climate debate. i.e. closed systems “experts” who do their best to design their own climate with their faulty modeling, and unable to see outside the earth’s troposphere. It is no coincidence that we have Fruitloop Flannery wanting to be one of the “Weather Makers”. These joker all assume now is the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that our largest plasma discharge formation the sun is somehow perfect, constant and regular. This is all part of this problem and an absurdity.
Whilst we get teddy (god) wars and big bang stooopidities it doesn’t get any more anthropocentric than human co2 emmissions causing global warming.
The closet warms up for the same reason once the ice is gone. It receives it energy from the rest of the house.
I stand by my interpretation because it incorporates the realities that we KNOW for certain are going on. Both poles ARE melting, the glaciers ARE retreating, precipitation IS increasing, violent weather IS increasing. Are there those here who can deny these facts? Are there those here who question the validity of the Mauna Loa weather station data? I have summarized much of this on my GLOBAL WARMING thread and I have repeated it here and at “brainstorms” as well. DaveScot/David Springer over at Uncommon Descent has ignored the facts as well and, as some here have done, celebrated the virtues of higher CO2 levels and warming with very little evidence that those higher levels have any beneficial effect on plant growth in the natural world. He thinks it is grand that they are now growing brocolli in Greenland. That kind of myopic optimism is what I find amazing. The earth over the last relatively few years has been undergoing changes that before man was here took very much longer, thirty times longer according to Flannery. I am not certain about exactly how much faster it is now, but there is absolutely no question that the rate of change in the geophysical nature of the planet is proceeding at an incredible rate at present, a rate, as I see it, that is steadily increasing. If we alarmists are wrong it will eventually become evident and we will look like fools. I will probably be gone before that day comes but as long as I breathe I will remain an alarmist because all the concrete facts plead for that position.
I do not believe that variations in solar output are contributing significantly to the current scenario which, in my opinion, is dominated largely, if not completely, by rapidly increasing atmospheric levels of the two major green house gases, CO2 and H2O vapor, increases due entirely to an ever increasing technologically advanced civilization, one which I do not believe can survive this century and possibly not the next 50 years. I am not even certain that it will survive the next twenty years and neither is anyone else.
“Mankind fiddled while earth burned.”
indigo
Mankind is the weather maker. We make the weather. That is the take home lesson in the book by “fruitloop Flannney.”
Severe weather increasing? Actually, no. Dr. Davison, I think perhaps you have missed some facts.
When we look at hurricanes that have made landfall in the last 150 years, there appears to be no discernible trend, and none that seemingly coincides with observed warming trends.
See the graph of hurricane frequency for the last 150 years.
On top of that, just last month, NOAA issued a press release saying that “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.” The source of the press release was the National Hurricane Center, from Chris Landsea, one of the researchers for the scientific paper that spurred this pronouncement as well as the NHC science and operations officer. They “get it” at NHC, it appears.
Tornadoes “appear” to be getting more frequent, but wait there’s more to it:
See this graph from NWS/NOAA. Smaller (F1) tornadoes seem to be on the increase, but not larger ones.
I see it as simply increased reporting bias. No I’m not talking about talking heads in news stories, but rather, our ability to detect and report tornadoes has increased dramatically in the last 50 years.
There are three main reasons:
1) Our 155 strong WSR-88D NEXRAD Doppler Radar Network. This nationwide tool sees tornadoes with more regularity than the old WSR74 and WSR57 C band analog radars which used to be the mainstay of the NWS radar network. Often tornadoes that would have gone undetected and unseen before (such as in unpopulated areas) are reported with accuracy by Doppler radar.
2) Increased population density. There are more people around in places that used to be uninhabited resulting in more tornado reports where before they went unseen. It is sort of like a twist on that old saying: “If a tree falls in the forest and there’s nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?”
3) More reporting coverage. TV news and storm chasers make getting tornadoes on live TV almost as regular as watching LA car chases. Helicopters with video feeds, live vans, and just regular folks with a K-Mart video camera in the right place at the right time increase the frequency with which we see severe weather events on TV, resulting in the “feeling” that such events are on the increase.
Lets talk about that “melting” ice:
Arctic ice is more than this time last year, the graph from the University of Illinois is indisputable in showing this. Make sure you make your browser window as wide as possible, to see the graph, then click this link.
Antarctic sea ice is well above normal too, it has just started it’s summer melt cycle, but even so remains above normal. Like above, make your browser wide and click this link
And about Greenland and Flannery’s statement: ” He thinks it is grand that they are now growing brocolli in Greenland.”
Well maybe not.
Apparently, like the growing Arctic sea ice Greenland has a lot of cold and ice too. In fact they have the most sea ice around Greenland in 15 years. Minus 30 degrees Celsius. That’s how cold it’s been in large parts of western Greenland where the population has been bundling up in hats and scarves. At the same time, Denmark’s Meteorological Institute states that the ice between Canada and southwest Greenland right now has reached its greatest extent in 15 years.
Looks like Flannery is wrong, it doesn’t look like great “broccoli growing weather” to me.
Now what do you say Dr. Davison, accept what you see from these sources or cast all this actual information aside with some quote? Personally I think you are misinformed by relying on one book “the weather makers”, written by a zoologist, to guide your understanding. Limiting one’s scope results in isolated views.
It w
The above comment was all there was. Looks like you hit submit accidentally.
Here is a fact that you must have missed. It was not Flannery who crowed about growing broccoli in Greenland. It was DaveScot/David Springer of Uncommon Descent.
I have my sources. You have yours. If you want to declare victory, be my guest. I really don’t care that much any more. There is no place for debate or even discussion in science. There is only discovery and disclosure. The testimony of 3000 independent weather stations, including the Mauna Loa station in Hawaii, tell a different story than what characterizes the posture of Watts Up With That?
I thank you for letting me present my heresies here. That places this forum a cut above Pharyngula, Panda’s Thumb, EvC, ARN, RichardDawkins.net, Uncommon Descent and other weblogs where I am not allowed to speak at all.
“Mankind fiddled while earth burned.”
John A. Davison
“Let us a little permit Nature to take her own way; she better understands her own affairs than we….Men believe most what they least understand.”
Montaigne
“Study Nature not books.”
Louis Agassiz
“It was not Flannery who crowed about growing broccoli in Greenland. It was DaveScot/David Springer of Uncommon Descent. ”
I stand corrected, thank you for pointing that out.
“The testimony of 3000 independent weather stations, including the Mauna Loa station in Hawaii, tell a different story than what characterizes the posture of Watts Up With That?”
You mean like these? The ones on rooftops, in parking lots, and at sewage treatment plants, and airport runways?
See this: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/category/weather_stations/
Only 13% on NOAA’s stations surveyed so far meet NOAA’s own exposure specs, and we’ve surveyed 502.
“I thank you for letting me present my heresies here.”
You are welcome, I hope you came away learning something, I know I did.
John A, when it comes to earth’s climate you are just a petite fart like the rest of us but Fruitloop Flannery, Algorithms, Hansen and co just naturally assume they are the hurricane. i.e. A person with a frothing delusion like this is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real. Understand?
One of the glaring oversights with these high priests of humans causing global warming is an assumption that our largest plasma discharge formation the sun and our galactic environment doesn’t do anything. Just how terribly wrong can one really be?
Then some people simply see earth’s climate politically with all the alarmist warmers on the left. But the big misconception here is that sunnyboy doesn’t go to the ballotbox and vote on anything.
Then we look at the media and all we see on very important scientific issues is the rise of a particularly nasty media priest class. The mainstream media in Australia are not about honest investigative science journalism but do an excellent job of reducing basic science to theology.
Two programmes I watched last night dealing with anthropogenic global warming should be preceded by a disclaimer that it is propaganda, not a documentary. These programs were about creating alarm through sea levels and melting ice caps which is quite misleading. However the actual facts of the matter are quite the opposite. e.g. Last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has been observed by satellite.
“Men believe most what they least understand.” Exactly. AGW/AGCC is a belief system, not unlike a religion, based on the pseudoscience. For the adherents, C02 is an evil poison. No amount of science can convince them otherwise, because they aren’t interested. “The Weather Makers”, by fruit-loops flim-flam Flannery is their bible, and he said so, so it must be true.
You and others are welcome to visit and participate on my weblog were you will not be insulted or edited no matter what you say. Thanks again.
“Mankind fiddled while earth burned.”
John A. Davison
Weather is created by differential heating of the earth’s surface. Do not confuse weather and climate.
Weather is also affected by factors that prevent the heat from escaping from the earth’s surface, factors like atmospheric CO2 and H2O vapor concentrations which continue to increase as the Mauna Loa station testifies.
I wish Bruce Cobb didn’t feel compelled to insult Tim Flannery. It gives the blog a bad name. I admire Flannery and identify with his views. It makes me irritable when he is treated with contempt and everybody knows what that means. Bruce Cobb has already made my list (#71on my WHY BANISHMENT? thread). I thought that stuff was going to stop. Flame blogs are a dime a dozen on the internet and Anthony Watts’ forum doesn’t have to one of them.
Confident of my position and Flannery’s, I have changed the tense of my signature.
“Mankind fiddled while earth burned.”
John A. Davison
Dr. Davison,
Thank you again for your comments. The issue here really is that you are making claims that can be refuted with facts, and instead of engaging the factual discussion on those claims, you just ramp up with more quotes. Quotes don’t impress us. A book by a zoologist called the “Weather Makers” doesn’t impress us, though it does you. That’s ok, that’s your right. But it is going nowhere here.
At issue is your refusal to engage the factual debate with real facts, rather you rely on quotes and anecdotes. That is the communications problem. Until you try a different tact, I think the results to your postings will be the same on most any forum you engage. By your own admisson your experiences elsewhere follow this pattern.
Since you enjoy anecdotes, if I were to pick one that sums up the issue best it would be this one:
“What we have here…is…failure to communicate” – Captain, Cool hand Luke, 1967.
Respectfully, I suggest that since we apparently are not communicating well, that we just give it a rest. Have a pleasant weekend everyone.
This thread is closed then until Monday, since I will not have time to moderate it.
Comments are open again. I’m travelling so there may be long delays between the writing of comments and them showing up.
Dr. Davison has been permanently banned from this forum for trolling for traffic on another thread. He is the first and only person to earn this distinction, but it appears that has been his goal all along. You can see the reason on this thread in the comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/new-ams-draft-policy-statement-links-hurricane-katrina-and-climate/
I think the AGW fraud is being exposed, primarily due to the web. But, it’s a painfully slow process, and will be unless the MSM takes notice, which they seem to be, slowly. John Tierny, in an op-ed piece which appeared in the NY Times Jan. 1 wrote :
Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.
In Feb., an editorial in the Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby titled “Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?” appeared.
These are only a couple examples, I’m sure there are many more. The pace needs to be stepped up though, to keep them from ramming through harmful legislation. People need to speak out. Write letters. The AGW lie must be exposed. There is too much at stake for it not to be.
Well, I’ll throw in a final comment that when I was staying up in Chappaqua (yes, THE Chappaqua), when I walked up brich lane after it rained I was picking up earthworms right and left from the concrete and tossing them back onthe lawns so they wouldn’t die in the road.
Can’t speak for anywhere else in the world, but they are up to their butts in eathworms in the NYC suburbs.
I am working on a “Global Warming for the Layman” paper based on the outlining principles I have expressed earlier in this thread. We’ll see wher that leads.
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=83#001232
comment March 24, 18:58
REPLY: Ah, here we have evidence (follow the link) that the Internet crackpot Dr. John A. Davison is now stooping to doing what he has repeatedly said he abhors; posting anonymously as a phantom in order to get a posting here. It is the childish equivalent of having a tantrum: “look at me!, pay attention to me!”
He writes at the link above: “Since I have been banned from “Watts Up With That?” I was forced to use a phony email address to introduce my above comment there.”
Dr. Davison write this down in your scribblelog of incoherent ramblings: you are a hypocritical crackpot!
I love it so!
“Mankind fiddles while the universe does whatever it damn well pleases.”
Now go away and don’t ever come back under any persona. Go order a pizza