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.
Mr and Mrs Bumwad are at home having breakfast in Bristol
Mr Bumwad -‘Must dash dear, time for work’
Mrs Bumwad -‘Busy day dear ?’
Mr Bumwad -‘Yes sirree. I got some big ideations to do this morning, and fifty five surveys to fill in this afternnoon’
Mrs Bumwad – ‘Umbrella dear?’
Mr Bumwad – ‘No, I dont thinks so’
Mrs Bumwad -‘But on the radio they said there was a slight chance of drizzle’
Mr Bumwad stops half way to the kitchen door. He looks thunderstruck.and worried. his wife wrings her hands, something is wrong.
Mr Bumwad – ‘Exactly what chance did they say ? what type of drizzle, did they secify ?’
Mrs Bumwad – ‘Just a slight chance of drizzle’ Umbrella dear ?’
Mr Bumwad shakes his head – ‘No. order me a speedboat , call the coastguard and get my rubber armbands out of the loft. Ring your mother, tell her to leave the city. NOW’
Merrick says:
April 8, 2014 at 9:04 am
“I was thinking Monsters are Due on Maple Street”
For those who do not know, this was a Twilight Zone episode where the people living on Maple Street (anytown USA) get spooked because their electrical devices start to act strangely. A lynch mob mentality ensures with accusations and finger pointing. Eventually an innocent man is killed by one of his.neighbors because he was walking towards them in the dark and they thought he might be a monster. In the end…. well, I won’t spoil it for you.
@Tom in Florida – Re: Monsters on Maple Street.
It starred Claude Akins if my memory has not failed me yet. A very good episode that had an impact on me even then.
Given that the earth is more likely to be cooling rather than warming for the next several hundred years and that the uncertainty lies in the timing and amount of the coming cooling-following Lewandowsky’s mad logic we should simultaneously be taking action to mitigate both being fried and frozen. To people of normal intelligence this is obviously batty and Lewandowsky and co should be gently led away by people in white coats to some quiet spot where they can babble away at each other in peace.
However we should note that this seeming lunatic policy is already the actual policy of the UK government which is subsidizing windmills to theoretically reduce CO2 while at the same time giving favoured industries energy cost rebates to enable them to produce more CO2.
For 20 years or so the inmates have been in charge of the asylum and the British people in general seem not to notice or care.
For an estimate of the timing and extent of the coming cooling using the 60 and 1000 year quasi- periodicities in the temperature data and the neutron count and 10Be data as the best proxy for solar “activity” see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
“According to Lewandowsky, the more uncertain you are about risk, the more you should spend to contain the risk.”
When crossing the Sahara be sure to carry an ark with you. Not really cheap, but there is always a risk…
Even if you believe in ManBearPig like Leo Geiger seems to, the economics are resoundingly (50-to-1, at minimum) in favor of adaptation, rather than mitigation.
I like Aaron Wildavksy’s insights on the precautionary principle in his book ‘But Is It True? (A citizen’s guide to environmental health and safety issues)’. For example this passage in the final chapter:
‘The precautionary principle is a marvellous piece of rhetoric. It places the speaker on the side of the citizen – I am acting for your health – and portrays opponents of the contemplated ban or regulation as indifferent or hostile to the public’s health. The rhetoric works in part because it assumes what actually should be proved, namely, that the health actions in view will be superior to the alternative’
He notes later how stultifying this principle is, and how it can give a free hand to government while imposing severe constraints on citizens. A key point he makes is that this can be and has been, very damaging to society. His book is full of well-studied examples.
Leo Geiger:
“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.”
Personally, I would put climate change on the bottom of the list of things I have to be worried about. Furthermore, given how chaotic climate is in general, I have no reason do believe that taking human influence out of the system makes in any more safe. Regardless of man’s activites, there are still storm, floods, hot days, cold days, ice ages, etc., etc.. Of course there are people who want to spin that differently these days, but it’s still just spin.
pokerguy says:
April 8, 2014 at 7:39 am
“There are an abundance of good, solid arguments against climate change alarmism. We only weaken our position with this kind of stuff, no matter how entertaining.”
Ridiculing Lewandowsky has nothing to do with CO2AGW. His paper was not about CO2AGW. It was about psychology.
Why do you think Lewandowsky has anything to say about CO2AGW, pokerguy?
The problem with the precautionary principle is that it gets applied to A but ignores the fact that not A can carry as much or even greater risk than A.
As we are not uncertain about The Big Lewandowsky’s mental state, we don’t have to do anything about it.
Waste no effort analysing the content of Lew’s publications. Nobody, including Lewandowsky, could possibly believe this nonsense. He is not, as some think, stupid or crazy – he’s simply gaming the system for fame and money, and having some fun along the way laughing at the reactions of the sceptics.
Jimbo – right on: “Would you remove 1/3 of your brain because you might get a brain tumor?” It seems to be a standard procedure in some circles. Example: How does IPCC determine a “high confidence”? By a popular vote, I suspect.
But surely given how important AGW is , the most important thing ever we are told , then what matters is doing the RIGHT THING not ANY THING especially as we told there is ‘no time to lose’
So should we not first know what the problem really is so that we pick the right solution , or is that approach endangering to Lew and friends ‘plans and ego’s ‘ for by finding out what the problem really is we may find out there is not one in the first place ?
“ZombieSymmetry says:
April 8, 2014 at 7:48 am
It is interesting to note that the lead author is a psychologist. :-P”
And, you might add, psychologists may well be crazier than the average person
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/why-shrinks-have-problems
“Mental health professionals are, in general, a fairly crazy lot…..
Here’s a theory that’s not so crazy: Maybe people enter the mental health field because they have a history of psychological difficulties. Perhaps they’re trying to understand or overcome their own problems, which would give us a pool of therapists who are a hit unusual to begin with. That alone could account for the image of the Crazy Shrink.”
to restate the precautionary principal: the less likely it is your decision will be intelligent, the more important it is to make said decision immediately.
The Science Daily article is titled “Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster”.
How did they confuse Lewandowsky, et al. with scientists?
“Ridiculing Lewandowsky has nothing to do with CO2AGW. His paper was not about CO2AGW. It was about psychology.Why do you think Lewandowsky has anything to say about CO2AGW, pokerguy?”
Before spouting off about what a paper is or is not about, usually better to you know, check it out. Here’s the summary of the work:
“Increasing uncertainty in the climate system compels a greater urgency for climate change mitigation, according to new research. Scientists have shown that as uncertainty in the temperature increase expected with a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels rises, so do the economic damages of increased climate change. Greater uncertainty also increases the likelihood of exceeding ‘safe’ temperature limits and the probability of failing to reach mitigation targets. The authors highlight this with the case of future sea level, as larger uncertainty in sea level rise requires greater precautionary action to manage flood risk.”
2nd paragraph :
“In two companion papers, published today in Climatic Change, the researchers investigated the mathematics of uncertainty in the climate system and showed that increased scientific uncertainty necessitates even greater action to mitigate climate change.”
Not seeing much about psychology. I see science, economics, and mathematics. What makes you think the paper is about psychology, DirkH
The abstract from part II:
“This article examines the role of uncertainty about future climate change in determining the likely success or failure of mitigative action. ”
The more uncertain one is, the more likely “mitigative action” will appear to be successful. It is the foundation for all superstition: Salt over the shoulder, black cats, broken mirrors, walking under ladders, and on and on.
Dr. Page is right, the biggest climate risk is of a new ice age; those fearful of it and devoted to taking precautions to mitigate it by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere should get tax reductions to do so. Of course, those who fear warming should also get tax reduction incentives to fight their fear. Tax reduction for everyone!
The consequences of NOT following the precautionary principle were lampooned (by self) at:
http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2012/10/you-are-going-to-die.html
if you would care to take a look at a real life example of post-modernistic thinking gone very, very wrong.
In 1973, The SCOTUS permitted abortion while professing itself uncertain as to the individual human status of the unborn. I would be delighted to see Lewandosky follow his precautionary principle and argue that it implies abortion should be prohibited as the taking of innocent human life.
But maybe he’s one of the ecofascists who regard humans as a blight to be extirpated?
My neighbor is telling me that the sounds coming from my attic must be ghosts. He says I should hire ghostbusters.
I told asked him to consider the possibility that the ghosts are friendly and are bringing me good luck. He has been divorced three times and I have not. I offered to loan him my ghosts but he declined citing the precautionary principle.
I would posit that the ideas of alien abduction and global warming of the human kind are quite similar; they are both the result of active imaginations.
When I read about this paper at Jo Nova’s blog my reaction was this seems so absurd it has to be a belated April Fools Day joke. But after many North Americans endured the coldest winter in decades (not that that has anything to do with climate… nobody needs to remind me), I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.
Well, in the spirit of the apparently pro-gambling CAGW religion that SL has adopted, I see his Hail Mary and raise him one Pascal’s Wager.
From the press release quoted over at JoNova’s:
The mathematics of uncertainty in the climate system? Since when is Lewandowsky a mathematician? Or a climate scientist? WTF is a psychobabbler doing on these papers? Well, other than advising how to twist the message to arrive at maximum propaganda value…
Lewandowsky should stick to submitting factually incorrect and unethically produced Op Eds for ultimate retraction by the witchdoctor journals.