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.
Captain Queeg. Brilliant!
I was thinking Monsters are Due on Maple Street.
But, ironically, there really was a conspiracy against Queeg (because he was exactly that person ranting on the stand and his crew couldn’t stand for it any more) and there were monsters on Maple Street.
Follow-on to the above comment:
Found this at the Guardian by Mark Abrahams: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/apr/09/improbable-research-human-stupidity
They only list the first 4 laws but reference the 5th in text?
There is also a reference to this earlier piece by the same writer. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/may/04/research.highereducation?guni=Article:in%20body%20link
CAGW zombies are real though.
Should all women immediately have their breasts removed to reduce the chance of breast cancer? That would be the precautionary principle but would likely cause other problems within society. But then I have a disposition to address issues as they arise and think Loo is a nutcase.
If you’re gonna burn a witch – make certain she weighs less than a duck
But they are certain they know what is going on and what the main cause is. If they are so uncertain about something else then is it just possible that they are WRONG about their projections. Bear in mind the failures since AR1, fail, fail, fail. That is certain is likely warming in 2100 will be much less than we previously thought. This is how I think about ‘risks’ and taking them.
Isn’t there a chance, even a small one, that Lew is a total nut case?
So, shouldn’t he be locked up away from society? I mean… he could hurt himself… or others. I don’t think we can afford to take that chance…
Correction:
What is certain is likely warming in 2100 will…….
I cannot believe that courses in Critical Thinking and Logic are NOT required for all students, but especially for Science majors!
Paul Homewood says: “Uncertainty? I thought the science was settled.”
If a scientist happens to say something that sounds like “the science is settled”, it is clumsy shorthand for “we know enough”. There is not an absolute certainty, but sufficient probability to form a basis for action.
When a pseudoskeptic uses the phrase “the science is settled” (and they do far more often than anyone else), it is to discredit scientists by suggesting the scientists are foolishly claiming absolute certainty. They are not.
The irony always seems to go unnoticed when this is followed by assertions that climate scientists are absolutely wrong, the economic cost of action is absolutely ruinous, and we can safely do absolutely nothing.
We took action on diets even though we WHERE CERTAIN!!! Where did that get us?
We took action on the Ozone decades ago and in December of last year NASA said “two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/at-agu-nasa-says-cfc-reduction-is-not-shrinking-the-ozone-hole-yet/
In the 1970s we were looking at ways to protect ourselves against global cooling. In the 1920 to 1940 people fretted about global warming. When are these idiots going to realise that it’s just the climate changing and things we observe today might always have been there.
Global warming scare follows cooling scare, follows warming scare and so on.
http://www.mrc.org/node/30586
I’m really afraid of snakes on a plane. I demand every flight within the U.S. be retrofitted with a pack of wild mongooses in order to alleviate my fears. There is no other way, think of the children!
So Lewandowsky is concerned about risk
Does he smoke and drink alcohol and eat red meat ?
He’s essentially going down the same idiotic route as Greg Craven.
“What’s the worst that could happen” is the question they ask. The consequences for unnecessarily spending $trillions on climate mitigation are weighed against worst-case climate castasrophe scenarios as the two extremes. Since climate catsrophe is far, far worse, the “obvious” choice is to spend the $trillions, and not to delay, either, because that ramps up the costs considerably.
You can’t fix stupid.
I am no astrophysicist but aren’t there possible but extremely unlikely (and uncertain) scenarios which pose such dire risk to the survival of humanity that they require unlimited funding to try to avoid, according to the Lewandowsky Principle (i.e., a gigantic meteor undetected to date which is headed for collision with planet earth, or changes in our sun which will make the earth uninhabitable, etc.) ???
We must devote ALL of our resources, NOW, to preparing to send at least a few human survivors beyond our solar system in the face of the uncertain, highly unlikely risk that humanity will be exterminated.
While deer hunting the object is to kill deer. The less you know about the location of the deer and your hunting buddies; the greater the chance you will come home empty-handed. According to these clowns, this means you should shoot at anything that moves.
http://youtu.be/wD3xhzuTrhA
no….you all misread Lew’s meaning here.
His uncertainty is that the theory of CAGW might be exposed as the lie it is….that uncertainty (I would say it is more certain than he believes) would upset his gravy train. His plea for more $$$ is to get the bucks now, rather than lose out on them later. That would mitigate his loss.
😉
Eric Worrall says: “Don’t forget, we are talking about the anthropogenic effect on climate…other highly uncertain but potentially devastating risks, such as the risk of being abducted by aliens.”
Equating main stream science with alien abduction is just a round about way of saying you are absolutely certain there is no risk. Either that, or you believe there is a realistic probability of being abducted by aliens.
Most people do not share that kind of absolute certainty.
“the more uncertain you are about risk, the more you should spend to contain the risk.”
Nope.
Response to risk was worked out in the middle ages by merchants sending their goods by sea. Often the ships would sink [due to extreme weather, pirates and whatnot]. The method that worked and still brought huge profits was to diversify. Each ship would carry only part of each cargo ie all the ships had a little bit of everything. So if 1 out of 3 ships sank the ones that made it would have enough to over the cost of the others.
So the greater the risk the more the diversification. The idea you can spend yourself out of risk is something the retail financial brokers would love a newbie punter on the stock market to say and hope they would continue to say until they blew up their account.
This principle of diversification is used from finance to retail to the military who face unknown risks. A toolbox with only 1 tool in it no matter how expensive is not equal to a box full of cheap tools if you are not sure what the job will be till it comes.
The ‘spending more’ bit sounds like a tin opener to get to the public finances and to move the narrative into the ‘lock in solutions’ to their cry wolf science rather than any understanding of risk.
Never, ever go mountain climbing because you might fall and die. We must act now on climbing mountains. Never buy stocks in companies because of uncertainty. Don’t go outside today because you might get killed by a car. Don’t stay indoors either because there might be a gas explosion.
Skiphil,
You’re absolutely right, but you forgot one caveat…ensure the selected doomsday scenario lines your pockets with public funds.
I really do have a reasonably good chance of getting malaria if I go out this evening (rampant mosquito & malaria environment) for an evening meal in the outdoors. That does not keep me from going for an evening meal. There is no such thing as a risk free life. Live with it!
Jimbo says:
April 8, 2014 at 9:37 am
Never, ever go mountain climbing because you might fall and die. We must act now on climbing mountains. Never buy stocks in companies because of uncertainty. Don’t go outside today because you might get killed by a car. Don’t stay indoors either because there might be a gas explosion.
——————————-
Jimbo, the safest thing to do is stay in the weather.
Cause of death No. of deaths Percent of total deaths
I. Communicable Diseases 18,324,000 32.13%
Tuberculosis 1,566,000 2.75%
HIV/AIDS 2,777,000 4.87%
Diarrhoeal diseases 1,798,000 3.15%
Malaria 1,272,000 2.23%
Other tropical diseases 129,000 0.23%
Other infectious & parasitic diseases 3,362000 5.90%
Subtotal – Infectious and parasitic diseases 10,904,000 19.12%
Respiratory infections 3,963,000 6.95%
Nutritional deficiencies 485,000 0.85%
Maternal and perinatal conditions 2,972,000 5.21%
II. Non-communicable Conditions 33,537,000 58.81%
Malignant neoplasms 7,121,000 12.49%
Cardiovascular diseases 16,733,000 29.34%
Respiratory diseases 3,702,000 6.49%
Other non-communicable conditions 5,981,000 10.49%
III. Injuries 5,168,000 9.06%
Road traffic accidents 1,192,000 2.09%
Violence 559,000 0.98%
War 172,000 0.30%
Extreme weather events 19,868 0.03%
All other injuries 3,225,600 5.66%
Sources: WHO (2004), EM-DAT (2007)
Extreme weather events 19,868 0.03%