tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post4504299332564938542..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Pielke vs SchneiderMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-60860280298519868272010-08-01T21:30:07.414-07:002010-08-01T21:30:07.414-07:00@Michael
I was writing in jest in response of Mark...@Michael<br />I was writing in jest in response of Mark Bahner.<br /><br />The Assembly of Experts is the highest governing body (bar Allah) in the constitution of Iran -- it elects the Supreme Leader.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-34152625136172665092010-08-01T21:02:01.189-07:002010-08-01T21:02:01.189-07:00@Eli
We agreed until your interventions of late la...@Eli<br />We agreed until your interventions of late last night (assuming you're somewhere in the US). And now we agree again.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-51319992063930226672010-08-01T18:58:52.493-07:002010-08-01T18:58:52.493-07:00RT: "Only experts can select experts."
...RT: "Only experts can select experts."<br /><br />An interesting (and authoritarian?) observation. I am not sure it is entirely true, but it is clearly not entirely false. <br /><br />I think it is at the core of the challenge.<br /><br />Is climate science authoritative? Is economics? These questions are not merely academic in our present quandary.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90974378866957822902010-08-01T18:49:28.218-07:002010-08-01T18:49:28.218-07:00Richard, we are arguing about the meaning of autho...Richard, we are arguing about the meaning of authority, you are using it in the negative sense of an arbitrary control of people, for example, Hitler was authoritarian (thread over). MT and Eli are using it to say that one should pay more attention to those who know more about a subject, not be ruled by them, in other words they are authorities on, for example, carbon taxes.<br /><br />To the extent that anyone is twisting words here, go look in the mirror.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-36562374091073587452010-08-01T16:03:23.972-07:002010-08-01T16:03:23.972-07:00@Michael
I am glad that I misunderstood you, as yo...@Michael<br />I am glad that I misunderstood you, as you may have gathered that I do not like authoritarianism.<br /><br />@David<br />Only experts can select experts.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-82050553824204396852010-08-01T15:31:30.270-07:002010-08-01T15:31:30.270-07:00Richard Tol --- Who selects such an assembly of ex...Richard Tol --- Who selects such an assembly of experts?<br /><br />We already have one, by the way: NAS/NAE/IOM/NRC.<br />They have written on several occasions reegarding climatology.<br /><br />From a self-selecting body of authorities.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56291496653369681992010-08-01T15:24:36.568-07:002010-08-01T15:24:36.568-07:00Richard, much as I am pleased to attract the atten...Richard, much as I am pleased to attract the attentions of an illustrious person such as yourself, I must insist that "Get in the best experts and let them make up your mind for you." is not a fair summary of my position. <br /><br />Please read more carefully.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12245535072417111282010-08-01T15:12:14.027-07:002010-08-01T15:12:14.027-07:00The weighing should happen at the staffer level no...The weighing should happen at the staffer level not at the level of the representatives in an elected body, of course. It turns out that in America at least, manipulating congressional staffers' opinions with polished propaganda is one of the key functions of lobbyists. Consequently the process is not currently working well.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-27072495031239669842010-08-01T15:11:38.267-07:002010-08-01T15:11:38.267-07:00@Hank Roberts
Note that I am paraphrasing Michael ...@Hank Roberts<br />Note that I am paraphrasing Michael Tobis, rather than Roger Pielke Jr.<br /><br />@Mark Bahner<br />That is one way to interpret what Michael is saying. But why not take it a step further and replace Congress with an Assembly of Experts?richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-24545611851850790372010-08-01T15:02:02.428-07:002010-08-01T15:02:02.428-07:00> let them make up your mind
No, if you're...> let them make up your mind<br /><br />No, if you're following Roger's notion, he's saying you may well _ignore_ them, because you are going to make a political decision, without limiting the choices to what the scientists say.<br /><br />Machiavelli was an honest broker.<br /><br />MT and Eli are saying get scientists to limit options to those likely to accomplish the ostensible result to actually accomplish work on the stated problem. Then pick from those.<br /><br />Current method, political:<br /><br />-- you bring in the experts, <br />-- consult with them, <br />-- you may or may not understand them, <br />-- announce to the public that you will be taking an action, but choose what you say you'll be doing<br /> because <br />-- your political advisor says the appearance of action will play well in the media up through the next election, <br />-- but you must make sure: <br />-- the scientists can't go public before the election.<br />____________________<br />Last week's example:<br /><br />"BP has apparently been hiring up a bunch of local scientists associated with various Gulf Coast universities to study the impact of the oil spill.... part of the contract it's making them sign is an agreement that they won't publish or share their data for at least three years. That's generally not how scientists work.... it's pretty clear that this has nothing to do with actually understanding and letting the world know what has happened. It's about keeping it quiet for as long as possible."<br /><br />http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100719/03034410272.shtmlHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-30744420010671490082010-08-01T14:59:45.214-07:002010-08-01T14:59:45.214-07:00"Opinions which are informed by expertise sho..."Opinions which are informed by expertise should carry more weight in decisions than opinions which are not well informed."<br /><br />So Senator Gore would have been allowed more than one vote on matters of global warming and the Internet than the other no-nothings in the Senate, when it came to votes on those subjects?markbahnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01039587157589669954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-28113451297936198462010-08-01T14:49:59.891-07:002010-08-01T14:49:59.891-07:00Richard Tol --- Experts have done just that.
The ...Richard Tol --- Experts have done just that.<br /><br />The examples that comes to mind just now are the occasions (in Boston and Tokyo, maybe also now elsewhere) where closing down a road lead to improved traffic flows and less commute time, on average.<br /><br />It saeems that authoritarianism has a larger role to play than those of us living in a country which gives lip service to democratic ideas give it credit for.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7879024853602594062010-08-01T14:22:52.114-07:002010-08-01T14:22:52.114-07:00""All I'm saying is: get in the best...""All I'm saying is: get in the best expertise and make up your own mind. "<br /><br />Richard, as far as I know nobody here disagrees with that."<br /><br />Well, in fact, Michael, you disagree. You argue: "Get in the best experts and let them make up your mind for you."richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-88431740233599247862010-08-01T14:20:39.127-07:002010-08-01T14:20:39.127-07:00"That a tornado is coming is not a shared val..."That a tornado is coming is not a shared value, it is a statement of fact that can be adjudicated empirically."<br /><br />"Not at all. To beat this analogy into the ground, a tornado can seem to be coming right at you, and then veer off at the last minute."<br /><br />Indeed. And tornadoes can also leave the ground, "hopping" over some structures to leave them undamaged, and then return to destroy other structures in the same path.<br /><br />In fact, there are many photos available that show tornadoes that causes utter destruction to some structures, while leaving nearby stuctures unscathed. <br /><br /><a href="http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/16451/Oklahoma_Moore_Tornado_lrg.jpg" rel="nofollow">Oklahoma tornado damage</a>markbahnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01039587157589669954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90681574259274101672010-08-01T13:59:01.236-07:002010-08-01T13:59:01.236-07:00"If you say, the approaching tornado compels ..."If you say, the approaching tornado compels us to go to the basement, then this statement is correct only if we have an agreed upon set of shared values (to live)!"<br /><br />There are plenty of people who don't go to the basement when a tornado approaches. In fact, there are people who chase tornadoes. Not because they have a death wish, but because the science of tornadoes is important enough to them to take a bit more risk.<br /><br />The point--if I have one (as Dave Barry would say)--is that there is not a digital difference. Rather, it's a difference across a whole spectrum. <br /><br />There may be people who indeed attempt suicide by going into a tornado. But probably very few tornado chasers have done that.markbahnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01039587157589669954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-82160954483393743562010-08-01T12:58:40.194-07:002010-08-01T12:58:40.194-07:00"All I'm saying is: get in the best exper..."All I'm saying is: get in the best expertise and make up your own mind. "<br /><br />Richard, as far as I know nobody here disagrees with that. Is that all Roger is saying?<br /><br />He tries to make a book out of this question, you know.<br /><br />Actually, I agree with Roger that there are important questions about the relationship between expertise and government. <br /><br />I don't agree with his answer at all, but I agree that there is a question.<br /><br />I can't speak for Roger, but I would say that there is a book because "get the best expertise and make up your own mind" does not have an obvious scaling to the regional, national or world policy stage.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-73297925692857853312010-08-01T12:56:32.500-07:002010-08-01T12:56:32.500-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63608291051844301422010-08-01T12:52:30.191-07:002010-08-01T12:52:30.191-07:00Mike Smith, certainly I agree in principle. (In pr...Mike Smith, certainly I agree in principle. (In practice, the solar thing, really <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_activity_and_climate_change" rel="nofollow"> doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny</a>). <br /><br />The same can be said for all the other intellectual disciplines impinging on climate policy, most notably economics. Economic pronouncements are not, in my observation, covered by appropriate caveats. <br /><br />And indeed, the present thread is about me questioning the certainty with which Roger goes from a conjecture in political science to a statement of fact, without any offer of evidence.<br /><br />The idea that climate scientists overstate our confidence is pretty much not true, though. <br /><br />IPCC is not just climate scientists. I think the issues with WG II are arguably deeper than a few sloppy mistakes here and there. I am not really familiar with WG III.<br /><br />I would hold up the WG I (climate science) results as an excellent example for appropriate statement of uncertainty in communication between science and policy. One wonders why climate science is regularly the target of these complaints. It's almost as if people really didn't want to know what the balance of evidence of physical science says.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90981405753953816442010-08-01T12:17:27.336-07:002010-08-01T12:17:27.336-07:00OK, I'll be the one to say it: Climate science...OK, I'll be the one to say it: Climate science is not, at this time, a "repeatable" science like the theory of gravity. There are plenty of policy-pertinent areas that are in dispute. And, unfortunately, we don't have an alternate atmosphere upon which we can experiment. The climate models (the best alternative to an alternate atmosphere) still have a long way to go.<br /><br />For example, the IPCC believes solar effects are minimal. Yet, there is evidence the IPCC has understated potential solar impacts on temperatures. Time will tell. Given this important uncertainty such a critical area, scientists can give opinions and even probabilities, but they cannot state facts (like gravity). We are in still in the hypothesis rather than theory stage of investigation.<br /><br />This is where the nub of the disagreement seems to be. Some climate scientists appear to state that 'global warming' as hypothesized by the IPCC is a "fact." Others believe it is an informed opinion but one of a variety of informed opinions. <br /><br />It would be utterly foolish for someone to advise a policymaker that gravity may fail next year. It would not be foolish to tell a policymaker the IPCC may be incorrect about solar influence on climate. <br /><br />I see the point Roger is making. Roger's "honest broker" would explain the nuances (as best we know them) to the policymaker. The advocate would champion certain actions treating the IPCC's position as fact. <br /><br />Given the current stage (hypothesis) of climate science, it is vital that scientists represent the difference between scientific facts and scientific opinion.Mike Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435605216805307424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-67332637531158721382010-08-01T07:26:39.214-07:002010-08-01T07:26:39.214-07:00Umm, science is required but is not enough to do d...Umm, science is required but is not enough to do decisions.<br /><br />Clearly someone who has their facts wrong, will likely do very bad decisions, no matter what their morality or decision making skill otherwise. (They might get lucky.)<br /><br />That's what Michael's been pounding in this blog for ages.<br /><br />I haven't read Roger Jr's book, but it seems the "honest broker" will not differentiate between claims, he just presents them all. This is easily imagined often very unhelpful.<br /><br />The "experts are no better at making judgments" has an obvious pitfall:<br /><br />If we assume 50% of the population has a counterfactual opinion of scientific issue X, then any person that has the correct information of X, like an expert, is probably on average going to be in a better position to make a judgement based on that fact, than a random person from the population.<br /><br />Then there's the third issue. Most of this "is / ought" thing a philosophical nitpicking. It was most hilariously explained by Pielke in the sand berms example: that perhaps failure was the aim all along and hence doing the sand berms was a viable option. This is not credible.<br /><br />It boils down to the statements "If we don't want to kill [hundreds/thousands/millions] we [should/should not] do [action]." vs "We [should/should not] do [action]". The latter is somehow very reprehensible. I think if you look at statements made by scientists, many are in the former category but they are essentially unchanged in content from the latter.<br /><br />One more thing: I don't think climatologists would necessarily be good sole creators of energy policy - but energy experts must take climate into account when making policy and they should *not* listen to fraudsters. Kooiti Matsuda nailed the latter here.<br /><br />You get really really crappy policy if you ignore facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-24530410325227084622010-07-31T20:37:00.922-07:002010-07-31T20:37:00.922-07:00@Eli
If you want to discuss with people, you shoul...@Eli<br />If you want to discuss with people, you should respond to what they write. You twist my words beyond recognition.<br /><br />All I'm saying is: get in the best expertise and make up your own mind.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-36620454104939004592010-07-31T20:18:39.133-07:002010-07-31T20:18:39.133-07:00In the spirit of making trouble, Eli would point o...In the spirit of making trouble, Eli would point out that the existence of a greenhouse effect does indeed appear to be a value driven issue to many people as shown by the ungodly number of strange replies to Ben Herman, Roger Sr. and Roy Spencer.<br /><br />Eli notes that these three worthies encouraged exactly the sort of postmodern attitude that Roger Jr. and Richard T are pushing here. <br /><br />The issue is not, as they claim, who decides, but who should one listen to before deciding. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-54612863452124564062010-07-31T20:16:35.964-07:002010-07-31T20:16:35.964-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.曾有年https://www.blogger.com/profile/15262867728762952777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-64710121518022338712010-07-31T20:12:47.929-07:002010-07-31T20:12:47.929-07:00@Eli
I know. My comment was not addressed at you.@Eli<br />I know. My comment was not addressed at you.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-42895174875147951642010-07-31T20:09:58.497-07:002010-07-31T20:09:58.497-07:00Richard Tol --- I'll let you set the carbon ta...Richard Tol --- I'll let you set the carbon tax if you set it high enough.<br /><br />:-)David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.com