I've read through this 4 or 5 times now trying to get my bearings. I'm not sure where to start.
Theoretically the framework makes a lot of sense but:
Scientists and science advisory groups have lost almost all credibility by the handling of COVID and Climate Change. Many scientists and science administrators and politicians are self aggrandizing egotistical creatures. They will never cede one iota of their power/prerogative/turf.
The media exists to stir the pot and requires quick, simplistic answers to complex problems that they can scream about. The media is also dominated be left wing socialist naifs trained by the post modern school that dominates American education. You don't mention the media in your framework.
The general public is naive about science and can't distinguish between good and bad scientific advice. They also don't understand risk and have become virtually totally risk averse.
I look forward to your exposition on COVID.
I would also like to see you take on the UN/FCCC/IPCC triumvirate and discuss pros and cons and come up with a position on whether it has been a net plus or a net negative.
Thanks for Cliff, er Pielke, notes. After 23 years bouncing around inside the business, emission trading, and policy world nationally and internationally, I can attest to your outline, Roger.
P.S. In 1999, Microsoft didn't have a single lobbyist in Washington.
I will be interested in going thru this. I think the framework holds up well for explaining the roles that the expert/scientist may play, but I think it's incomplete if it doesn't take into consideration:
• the decision itself;
• the decision-maker - after all, experts advise, but leaders decide; and,
• the expert/scientist themselves.
The latter is particularly important. Are they a hedgehog or a fox, i.e., what are the limits of their expertise in terms of knowledge domains. Within their domain, have they had the same experience 30 times, or thirty different experiences.
Given limits on knowledge and experience, the Honest Broker has to be the preferred role for experts in assisting decision-makers, particularly those decisions that go beyond the science and involve human values. Senator Warnock has a very apt quote he attributes to his Dad: "Do the job you're hired to do." We elect or appoint leaders or managers to make decisions; they have experts to advise them.
Thanks, good stuff. In the pandemic there are numerous examples of breakdowns in the roles of advisor vs decision maker, sometimes quite intentionally. More on this to come . . .
The “framework” in which you discuss the various issues holds up very well, it’s helping me put the enormity of the challenge into perspective. The chapter discussing the “math” was very impactful, as my background is numbers (I am a retire accountant).
This article by Joel Kotkin is worth a read when pondering the harm done by mindless Net Zero policies.
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/revenge-analog-economy/?utm_source=Morning+Shot&utm_campaign=fd0de7c12d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_09_07_08_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_68055d3d21-fd0de7c12d-155433289
I've read through this 4 or 5 times now trying to get my bearings. I'm not sure where to start.
Theoretically the framework makes a lot of sense but:
Scientists and science advisory groups have lost almost all credibility by the handling of COVID and Climate Change. Many scientists and science administrators and politicians are self aggrandizing egotistical creatures. They will never cede one iota of their power/prerogative/turf.
The media exists to stir the pot and requires quick, simplistic answers to complex problems that they can scream about. The media is also dominated be left wing socialist naifs trained by the post modern school that dominates American education. You don't mention the media in your framework.
The general public is naive about science and can't distinguish between good and bad scientific advice. They also don't understand risk and have become virtually totally risk averse.
I look forward to your exposition on COVID.
I would also like to see you take on the UN/FCCC/IPCC triumvirate and discuss pros and cons and come up with a position on whether it has been a net plus or a net negative.
Thanks for Cliff, er Pielke, notes. After 23 years bouncing around inside the business, emission trading, and policy world nationally and internationally, I can attest to your outline, Roger.
P.S. In 1999, Microsoft didn't have a single lobbyist in Washington.
I will be interested in going thru this. I think the framework holds up well for explaining the roles that the expert/scientist may play, but I think it's incomplete if it doesn't take into consideration:
• the decision itself;
• the decision-maker - after all, experts advise, but leaders decide; and,
• the expert/scientist themselves.
The latter is particularly important. Are they a hedgehog or a fox, i.e., what are the limits of their expertise in terms of knowledge domains. Within their domain, have they had the same experience 30 times, or thirty different experiences.
Given limits on knowledge and experience, the Honest Broker has to be the preferred role for experts in assisting decision-makers, particularly those decisions that go beyond the science and involve human values. Senator Warnock has a very apt quote he attributes to his Dad: "Do the job you're hired to do." We elect or appoint leaders or managers to make decisions; they have experts to advise them.
Thanks, good stuff. In the pandemic there are numerous examples of breakdowns in the roles of advisor vs decision maker, sometimes quite intentionally. More on this to come . . .
Just got this piece this AM. The book likely worth reading. https://geopoliticalfutures.com/americas-institutional-crisis/
Thank you
As a counterpoint to your point, you might want to look at https://resilientcommunities.home.blog/2020/05/28/a-users-guide-to-expert-advice/
I’m 1/2 way through your book The Climate Fix, and enjoying it very much.
That’s why I subscribed to your Substack page in order to follow the climate issue more closely.
Thanks! Let me know any Qs about TCF ... I think it holds up very well, though some time has gone by.
The “framework” in which you discuss the various issues holds up very well, it’s helping me put the enormity of the challenge into perspective. The chapter discussing the “math” was very impactful, as my background is numbers (I am a retire accountant).
That is great to hear ... I've learned that the book resonates better with the quantitatively inclined
I never used a calculator that could work in Quads 😂🤣😂🤣.