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.
What the “uncertainty” principle has done is to turn logic in its head so that what amounts to an international cabal can dictate policy. It is impossible to prove a negative. You can not prove something can NOT happen. You can only PROVE what HAS happened. So if you dig through the Rio declaration documents and Agenda 21 of that document you will see language where it says that uncertainty is not a valid reason for not acting. If something COULD happen, that requires nations to mitigate against the possibility. Well, a meteor COULD slam right into my lap right this minute. How much should I spend in mitigating that possibility?
What these people have done through the language of their various documents is to place the onus on proving something can not happen or has not happened. That is a logical impossibility. All you can prove is that you don’t believe something can happen and have so far found no evidence of it happening. This means you lose. Those allows any fabrication of the imagination to be used to force billions of dollars of spending so long as you can find some credentialed so-and-so that will state that “it could happen”. All the logic in the world at that point showing that there is no actual evidence that it actually HAS happened or even WILL happen is moot.
These people have quite literally gone insane.
[snip -let’s not go there -mod]
Maybe they’re not as worried about Lewandowsky, specifically as they are about retractions, generally.
I’m unsure about the economic damage caused by spending $A 1tr on importing carbon credits from Nigeria (apparently, such experts at developing their clean energy technology that they will not only reduce their emissions by 80% but also have loads spare to sell us).
I do know that Oz has seen 120,000 people added to the dole queues since the CEF legislation.
Precautionary principle says if there is any risk of a Great Depression, we must repeal the legislation.
According to Heisenberg, nature is inherently uncertain. Does that mean there is no limit to the funds we should send to Loopy Lewie? Or does it mean we shouldn’t send him any funds because no amount of funding will remove all uncertainty? I can’t do nothing, because that would be to choose the second option. Woe is me.
Leo Geiger says:
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…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A more apt analogy would be: I conducted an experiment to see if my house would indeed burn. I tried 230 times and it would not catch fire. The conclusion? There is something wrong with the matches. Therefore I need fire insurance just to be safe anyway.
Lewandowsky sounds insanely paranoid.
It’s possible that Vogon poetry is actually very good. The uncertainty is enormous. Therefore we must prepare diligently now by stocking the world’s libraries with as much of it as is available
I’m “uncertain” exactly how the Medieval period started (Rome collapsing didn’t help), but good ole’ human stupidity and superstition were a big part of the mess. This swamp of human misery continued for about 1000 years, until, among otter things, the newly developed scientific method could reliably separate voodoo fiction from fact.
Lewandowsky and his crowd now propose going back to the dark ages because of “uncertainty”. These fools have zero common sense and their antics make witch doctors and voodoo priests look positively scientific.
The failure of academia to clean up its Augean stables and shun these fools is stinking up the place…
Morganovich, are you saying it’s precaution all the way down? I thought it was turtles.
As has been noted, the “Precautionary Principle” is nothing new, having been among Pascal’s thoughts published posthumously and generally referred to as Pascal’s Wager. In short, the bet on God existing has the best expected payoff (and if I may add, if you’re living in a time or place where not believing can get you killed, I’d tend to agree).
He also left the following for unbelievers struggling with their lack of faith:
“But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.”
The Precautionary Principle, like the earlier version, is religion, not science.
“I’m “uncertain” exactly how the Medieval period started (Rome collapsing didn’t help), but good ole’ human stupidity and superstition were a big part of the mess. This swamp of human misery continued for about 1000 years, until, among otter things, the newly developed scientific method could reliably separate voodoo fiction from fact”
Sorry, no, you’re thinking of Hollywood caricatures. The medieval period in Europe was a fairly vibrant period that saw advances in usable technology and increased living standards. You may not think heavy wheeled plows, horse collars, stirrups or waterwheels to be particularly earth shattering, but they were. Try reading “Medieval Technology and Social Change” by UCLA’s Lynn White (1962). It was the abundance created by medieval advances that enabled the Renaissance to flower.
Taking into account the precautionary principle, why do we allow people to move around unprotected on the surface of the Earth? This is, after all, simply an open invitation to get yourself into all sorts of trouble, such as car, bus, and train accidents. And that does not even take into account the chances of being hit by lightning, encountering tornadoes or hurricanes or even being vaporized by mentor strikes. Obviously, a clear-headed understanding of the precautionary principle demands that we all move into the deepest coal mine in West Virginia or perhaps the deepest gold mine in South Africa (for those who insist on absolute safety) and don’t get me started talking about the dangers of jogging, running, walking or swimming!
In my world, Aerospace, this is a risk management problem. We plot risk/consequences on a 5×5 matrix. Risk being defined as an event that has a probability of driving you off your program baseline in a negative way. The risk is normally stated as an if-then statement: If (risk A) occurs the (Consequence B) will happen. The probability of the risk is ranked 1 to 5 (low to high). The consequence is ranked 1-5 (minor to high). We concentrate on the upper right hand corner for spending money to mitigate risk (high probability/major consequences). We tend not to spend money on low probability risks regardless of consequences because there are so many and the mitigation actions are so expensive. For example, a major earthquake in California would be very disruptive; but, eliminating that risk is impracticable and unaffordable. In our parlance it is a ‘narrow, deep hole.’
The precautionary principle asks us to consider only the consequences – not the probability of occurrence. That way leads to bankruptcy. Under that logic, think of the major programs vying for funding: asteroid collision with earth, earthquake mitigation, avoidance of emerging diseases, etc
The climate debate, as I understand it, is founded in a major way on the probability of Global Warming/Climate Disruption caused by CO2 happening and in a minor way on the consequences if it does. The risk probability (will it happen) is a major debate as to whether we (collectively) understand the climate processes well enough to predict the end state at any future point. The consequences debate ranges from ‘catastrophic’ to ‘a little bit of warming is good’ to ‘it is self regulating so don’t worry’ to ‘what is the climate baseline – if one exists.’ The last (what is the baseline?) is intriguing since without a baseline, you can not define the risk.
soarergtl says:
April 8, 2014 at 7:11 am
As usual, Lew has discharged both barrels into his own feet.
By doing so he has eliminated his risk for corns, bunyons, ingrown, toenails, foot odor etc..
But most importantly, he has saved from any unforeseen foot malady.
His logic is flawless.
pokerguy says:
April 8, 2014 at 10:32 am
“Not seeing much about psychology. I see science, economics, and mathematics. What makes you think the paper is about psychology, DirkH”
Oh. My bad. I thought he’s a psychologist or sociologist. So you’re saying he’s now an expert on science, economics, and mathematics? You’re kidding me, right?
The UK’s Guardian newspaper covered this. While this newspaper is routinely scoffed at as ‘leftist nonsense’, I must declare that I am a ‘natural’ Guardian reader. I grew up with this paper – being from an English poltically left-of-centre family – and my parents (close to 80 years old) still read it daily. I continue to sympathise with its general political position, but despair at its complete loss of any sense of reality when it comes to AGW. Thus, I routinely post rational AGW-sceptic comments on its online edition. I am ‘pre-moderated’, and regularly censored by its no-doubt youthful and naive moderators as a ‘troll’. I have often stated to them as such – that I am a life-long Guardian reader/supporter and have every right to declare my position. Anyway, my comments below the Lewandowsky article was as follows, having recieved one of the higher number of votes.
*****
“in the case of the climate system, it is very clear that greater uncertainty will make things even worse’
Climate science is interesting. It seems that whichever way you look at it, its worse than we thought.
Now, let me see if I can grasp this risk issue. If I leave my house today, I have a risk of being run down by a bus. If I stay at home I don’t. I’d better stay at home then. But if I do that, I have a risk of falling down my stairs. So I’d better leave the house then. Maybe, I’ll just sit on the doorstep.
******
The link:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/04/climate-change-uncertainty-stronger-tackling-case#comment-33981483
While trying to find out more about The Big Lewandowsky, I found he and a guy named John Cook are also experts on Science Communication, especially Debunking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunker#Backfire_effects
So much so that the two experts have written a handbook on debunking.
Science, economics, mathematics, CO2AGW, psychology, science communication, AND debunking; no wonder he is called the BIG Lewandowsky.
DirkH:
While trying to find out more about The Big Lewandowsky, I found he and a guy named John Cook are also experts on Science Communication, especially Debunking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunker#Backfire_effects
LOL! I see listed with the Notable Debunkers on that Wiki page Penn & Teller!
http://youtu.be/4v4Q9Wv10Ho hahahahaha!
Leo Geiger says:
April 8, 2014 at 8:34 am
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?
Leo, when you quote me, quote me, don’t cut what YOU want to say out of a post. What you attribute to ME is thepost by the person I was quoting. Either pull your head out of your you know what and read what is said or don’t bother to comment. With regards your OWN comment, I perceive the possibility that the Moon may be hit by an asteroid and parts of it will fall to Earth. The perception of a possibility does not make it a reality, but only a fool would say that raising the cost of living by, say 30 or 40% won’t affect the economic welfare of everyone alive today and into the future. The ONLY way you could “insure” the environment that you believe should exist is to eliminate about 80% of the human population. Understandably, YOU would not, of course, be one of those eliminated because of your eco-conscience.
Since the widely accepted threat of sudden and extreme global cooling is even more uncertain, they claim, a massive synthetic greenhouse gas R&D effort should now commence with the Royal Society at the helm. The certainty of furthering a recession that degrades funding for all other sciences is to be obviously disreguarded, for the rise of deadly antibiotic resistance as chemists and biologists go unemployed, that’s too certain to be neurotic about when climate hypochondria is especially warranted now that climate models have worryingly failed.
The more skeptics popularize alarmist arguments like this, oddly enough the less they want to censor us, eh?
Bruce Cobb says: 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.
Unless you have a time machine, deciding to go that route is effectively another all-in bet that this turns out to be true. The rationale for doing absolutely nothing is near certainty there is no risk, and any avoidance costs will be prohibitive.
Welcome to settled science *and* settled economics.
Leo Geiger:
“The rationale for doing absolutely nothing is near certainty there is no risk, and any avoidance costs will be prohibitive.”
Not at all! The rational for doing absolutely nothing, in my view, is that the signal is not there. That there is too much noise in the data to base action of any kind on, and it’s completely up in the air whether any action taken would have a positive or negative effect.
There is ALWAYS risk, whether action is taken or not.
Tom O says: “What you attribute to ME is thepost by the person I was quoting. Either pull your head out of your you know what and read what is said or don’t bother to comment.”
Sorry Tom. I copied the first text and then went back up to your (wrong) post for the name. Many people uses italics when quoting others. It helps makes things clearer.
ggoodknight says:
April 8, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Sorry, no, you’re thinking of Hollywood caricatures. The medieval period in Europe was a fairly vibrant period that saw advances in usable technology and increased living standards. You may not think heavy wheeled plows, horse collars, stirrups or waterwheels to be particularly earth shattering, but they were. Try reading “Medieval Technology and Social Change” by UCLA’s Lynn White (1962). It was the abundance created by medieval advances that enabled the Renaissance to flower.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently I stand corrected.
I’m really not arguing your articulated virtues of the medieval period – the point was about the scientific method’s ability to substantially reduce “uncertainty”. While not a silver bullet for all mankind’s ills, Lewandowsky’s willingness to throw this overboard takes us right back to voodoo, magic and witch doctors…and all their consequences.
After all, what’s a little Black Death among 75-200 million (dead) friends. Constant invasions, Crusades, civil wars, etc were probably a charming way to meet foreign people. Famines ensured highways weren’t overcrowded, and who wouldn’t want to be a surf?
Granted, if you were in with the “in crowd”, it was probably a great time to be alive…but for the other 99% of the population, well, it was probably highly “uncertain”.