Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Stephan Lewandowsky (of retracted Recursive Fury fame ) has just released a paper supporting the “precautionary principle” (h/t JoNova). According to Lewandowsky, the more uncertain you are about risk, the more you should spend to contain the risk.
Lewandowsky of course applies this principle to climate sensitivity – he suggests uncertainty increases the high end risk.
But now that Lewandosky has opened our eyes, let’s try applying his principle to other issues.
Witch burning. Just as there has never been a clear anthropogenic climate signal, so there has never been a clear demonstration of supernatural power. Yet can we be absolutely certain? Lewandowsky teaches us that the less you know about something, the more worried you should be. So for the sake of the children, we had better dust off those old witch finding books.
Flying saucers. There has never been a verified case of human contact with aliens. But there have been plenty of anecdotal accounts of alien encounters, many of which sound rather unpleasant. Lewandowsky teaches us that uncertainty is risk – can we be absolutely certain Earth is not being observed by malevolent alien beings? Better step up efforts to keep us all safe from the unknown.
I’m sure readers can think of other examples – chemtrails, rains of frogs, strange wart like pimples… it’s a long list.
Thank you Lewandowsky, for opening our eyes to what is really important.
Tom O says:You are CERTAIN about a particular risk that will lead to a real life threatening occurrence, therefore spend less on it than something that you only have suspicion about but very little information?
The point that appears to be lost in comments like these: when increased certainty reduces the range of possible outcomes to exclude the most serious, you can get away with spending less on avoiding the consequences. Being able to exclude a life threatening occurrence is what gives you the ability to spend less on it.
It isn’t only the size of the uncertainty that matters, it is the combination of that uncertainty with the range of consequences.
This is hardly controversial or illogical. It is the principal underpinning the operation of the entire insurance industry.
Leo,
Your analogy won’t wash. CO2 mitigation, Unlike Insurance (which is based on historical probabilities) is based on a SWAG. you’ll also note that insurance customers are careful about shopping for a bargain.
You can’t disguise the smell of a skunk by holding it next to a rose.
Bill Illis says-
“Basically, stop economic growth all together and/or accept slowly declining economic prosperity.
They do not know that is what they are implying (but they don’t understand economics in any event).”
Sadly, they have already made unequivocal statements to that effect-
“The only way that a 2015 agreement can achieve a 2-degree goal is to shut down the whole global economy.”
Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC former executive secretary, November 2013
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-04/kyoto-veterans-say-global-warming-goal-slipping-away.html
The really sad part is that global temperatures are actually tracking Hansen’s 1988 prediction that assumed the carbon-powered global economy shut down in 2000.
Lewandowsky is displaying the exact same irrational, cloudy thinking that I have found with other AGWers with whom I have had discussions. For some reason, having a post-graduate degree in science does not necessarily mean that one is a logical, good-reasoning person… just having plain horse sense.
“According to Lewandowsky, the more uncertain you are about risk, the more you should spend to contain the risk.”
I thought ignorance was bliss.
If PP was valid per Lewandowsky then he needs to become a devote Christian immediately. I am sure there is uncertainly surrounding the existence of God. Eternity is a very long time.
Showtime new series is called “the years of living dangerously”.
Who saw this title and thought it was about “global warming”?
Well here’s a logical dilemma, how do you use reductio ad absurdam when it’s absurd beyond belief before you start…
From the Urban Dictionary, “Concern Troll” –
“A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of “concern,” to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don’t really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.”
Sound familiar, pokerguy?
There is a chance that Stephan Lewandowsky is Satan and must be destroyed. I am very uncertain on that issue. Shall we act on it?
/snarc
So Bush was right to invade Iraq on the chance that they might have had weapons o’ mass destruction?
Leo Geiger
Most people are not gifted with the “absolute certainty” of the typical WUWT blog reader/contributor that (a) green house gas emissions are not a problem and (b) steps to reduce them will destroy the economy. … That’s why people do things like buy fire insurance…
Don’t forget, we are talking about the anthropogenic effect on climate – something which has never been observed. Nothing about current climatic conditions is in any way abnormal.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/22/occams-razor-and-climate-change/
If Lewandowsky is right, and we need to take such hypothetical uncertainties seriously, then we need to pay equal attention to other highly uncertain but potentially devastating risks, such as the risk of being abducted by aliens.
Is Lewandowsky agnostic? Because if he is he should be spending way more time in church than believers – because it’s the uncertainty that increases the risk!
Mark and two Cats: “So Bush was right to invade Iraq on the chance that they might have had weapons o’ mass destruction?”
It would seem so! Damn good analogy.
Mr. Lew is not certain about his latest paper. Not knowing the risks of such uncertainty, he has applied for additional funds to study his theory, because it is such an unknown and uncertain hypothesis.
Presumably, Lewandowsky believes that because we’ve put a little extra CO2 into the atmosphere the climate is conspiring to kill us.
Hmmmmn.
OK. The old “Uncertainty Principle” – or, phrased differently as the CAGW religion requires it, the “Precautionary Principle”, right?
Except, the CAGW religion REQUIRES that the government DEMAND from me 100 years of very expensive, absolutely catastrophic-inducing “insurance” against a “possible” problem of unknown amount of unknown benefits and unknown potential problems affecting unknown numbers of people in unknown ways.
That “insurance” they DEMAND under a dictatorship straining to condemn billions of people topoverty and squalor, forcing millions of people to an early death from poverty, starvation, illness, bad water, little food, no jobs, no advancement and poor food, clothing, and shelter
IS 100 years of a “solution” THAT WILL NOT STOP THE PROBLEM (of assumed continued global warming) nor will it STOP THE SUPPOSED CAUSE (increased global CO2)!
Thus, your comparison with “insurance” shows EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you think it does! You are demanding the the rest of the world cut off its hands and feet NOW to avoid a the “potential” problems of being overweight by 10 pounds 100 years by “perhaps” 10 pounds.
You are NOT demanding insurance against a statistical probability of a future failure. You are DEMANDING that I pay 50,000.00 per year in flood insurance to the government for 100 years so that my $150,000.00 dollar home that is 150 feet above the local creek bed “might” be replaced with a government-designed shack – but only if a lightening storm knocks down a tree causing a power failure during a blizzard in July after a 7.1 earthquake.
But, if my water heater breaks and floods the basement, your government-required flood insurance won’t pay a thing.
If a fire breaks out, your government-mandated flood insurance won’t pay a thing.
If the heater breaks down, your government-mandated flood insurance won’t pay a thing.
If a water pipe wears through because I can’t afford a plumber, your government-required flood insurance won’t pay a thing.
If the sink faucet leaks, your government-mandated flood insurance won’t pay a thing.
If that tree falls through the roof NOT during a power outage after an earthquake, your government-mandated flood insurance won’t pay a thing.
If I contaminate my food because your government-mandated water supply gets contaminated by government waste and no chemicals because they cause “environmental damage” to the waterways, your government-mandated flood insurance won’t pay a thing towards the hospital bill.
But YOU will feel better because YOU have written a requirement that I have flood insurance!
Hear, hear RACook!
john robertson says:
April 8, 2014 at 7:17 am
Impalement by unicorn.
Suffocation in Lew Paper.
…
John, thanks for making the reference, hadn’t heard of the 5 laws before…
The Five Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (H/T to http://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/2013/01/the-five-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/)
1.Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2.The probability that a certain person is stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
3.The Golden Law of Human Stupidity: A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain, and even possibly incurring losses.
4.Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
5.A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person. Corollary: A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.
If the Law 5 corollary is valid, can we put them in jail?
A true scientist (think Feynman, as he mentioned it specifically) doesn’t fear uncertainty. He positively relishes it, because it means there’s something to discover. Only a psychologist would make such a basic mistake.
My personal favorite (mentioned elsewhere before). Bearded, wild-haired, barefoot modern-day “prophet” with sandwich board proclaiming: REPENT! THE WORLD WILL END TOMORROW!
Hey, the entire world is at risk
I assume Lew’s “paper” is not for scientific purposes, but political and activist purposes. It’s simply dressed up as science to look like a purse instead of a sow’s ear. Somehow or other it will be used to refute the blatantly obvious lack of data in support of AGW in order to keep the money and headlines flowing.
The “world” has certainly come a long way since a famous politician once said, “There’s nothing to fear but fear itself.” Now, the famous politicians and scientific stooges have nothing to offer but fear itself. Ironical. Diabolical. Shameful. We would be ignoring them if it weren’t for their constant threatening posture. An even-handed climate outlook would include risk assessments for a ‘cold Sun’ and cooling world scenario – where are they? Further, the largest risk is one that they won’t discuss – the very real risk and very likely outcome of them being completely wrong.
The egos involved are so huge that all of mankind must be brought into slavish subjection to the faulty CO2 paradigm so those few cracking the whip can save face in spite of their utter failure to produce convincing evidence or predictions. The fear-mongers are the aggressors, and usually in conflict, the aggressor sets the rules. These “rulers” are aggressive fear-mongers hell-bent on creating and enforcing universal capitulation and subservience to their “great work” of remolding the world for their further dominance.
The”world” is far more skeptical and resistant to their fear-mongering BS, and far more adaptive and resilient than is assumed by the warmists. Most people of common sense know there are risks everyday, and most of those fears are imaginary phantoms in our minds that never materialize, such as the falsely attributed CAGW and CAGW-caused extreme weather events. The real risk to humanity would be in following the lead of these opportunistic power-mad fear-mongers.
What we should all do is keep saying “prove it” every single time a pompous ass politician like John Kerry or scientist like John Holdren opens his big mouth and proclaims that fossil fuel users are responsible for tragic natural disasters like Typhoon Haiyan, or a flood, or a drought, or a heat wave, and says we are responsible for paying for the damages. If John Kerry can’t back up his sorry statements, which he can’t possibly do, nor his supporting cast of shoddy scientists like John Holdren, then it’s long past time for him and fellow travelers to admit they have no idea what they’re talking about.
John Kerry has baited the peoples who suffered from storms like Haiyan and Sandy with promises of money based on flatout lies. That is buying votes outright. No wonder there’s a contigent at the UN with hands out, pleading for money – it’s because they’re encouraged to do so by this administration, with implicit promises of money in return for their votes on the next climate treaty. That’s the reality. Everyone everywhere is being badgered, buffaloed, and bought off into submission to and by this band of psychopaths. The real risk is that humanity’s freedom will be lost forever to the big lie of CAGW.
Humanity does not deserve that fate. Humanity deserves leadership that understands its limits. People deserve to understand that it’s not our fault – the Sun did it. Earth’s space environment dominated by the Sun is responsible for weather and climate, not humanity via CO2.
If the CAGW risk doomsayers want to be seen as even-handed, then they can apply their precious precautionary principle to themselves and their big risky plans first.
We can build very long/large Safety Cases about high risk and especially uncertainty. The latter is the full door stopper type with added computer blocking modeling software. That software makes an awful lot of money quickly and is highly recommended to start up software companies. Its like computer games – lots of fantasy and screwing up the web by playing across countries/continents.
Or we can issue a safety statement that says…be careful. And thats where a self duty of care appears, which usually requires a little training. Aka Adaption.
God help us…..and thats another big risk with major uncertainty!
During the Little Ice Age crop failures and climate uncertainty lead to extensive witch killings.
They are asking me to take out a premium costing 2/3 of the cos of my house as a precaution. Would you remove 1/3 of your brain because you might get a brain tumor? No thanks! Though some people do say I already have 1/3 missing. Narf, narf.
Mark and two Cats: “So Bush was right to invade Iraq on the chance that they might have had weapons o’ mass destruction?”
Very different I think. The list of Iraq’s crimes,… known attempts to develop WMDs, chemical, biological, and nuclear, past use of such on his own people, invasions of neighboring nations, plans to take the Northern Saudi oil fields, insane view of himself as the one to unite the Arab world, the incarnated Nebacanezer, sponsor of terrorist events in many parts of the world, and much more, led to the invasion of Iraq.
On the other hand all the supposed terrors of additional man made CO2, increased hurricanes storms, droughts, floods, rising seas, increased wildfires, lowered crop yields, you name it, NONE of these have materialized.
(By the way, I studied and read both sides of the Iraq issue. The pro invasion ideas were strong and logical, but I was against this invasion because, and unlike Lew here, the “precautionary principle” was sound here. We had many reasons to know we did not know the outcome of such a war, and the realistic (unlike CAGW) negative senarios were large.