= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
passive_fist comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (261)
Regardless of whether you personally agree with the consensus on climate change, the fact is that most politicians in office are not scientists and do not have the requisite background to even begin reading climate change papers and materials. Yet they must often make decisions on climate change issues. I'd much prefer that they took the consensus scientific opinion rather than making up their own ill-formed beliefs. If the scientific opinion turns out to be wrong, I will pin the full blame on the scientists, not the decision makers.
And, as I'm saying, this generalizes to all sorts of other issues. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but ultimately a lot of people find themselves in situations where they must make a decision based on limited information and intelligence. In such a scenario, often the best choice is to 'trust' scientists. The option to 'figure it out for yourself' is not available.
In general I would agree with you. However, as usual, real life is complicated.
The debate about climate has been greatly politicized and commercialized. Many people participating in this debate had and have huge incentives, (political, monetary, professional, etc.) to bend the perceptions in their favor. Many scientists behaved... less than admirably. The cause has been picked up (I might even say "hijacked") by the environmental movement which desperately needed a new bogeyman, a new fear to keep the money flowing. There has been much confusion -- some natural and some deliberately created -- over which questions exactly are being asked and answered. Some climate scientists decided they're experts on economics and public policy and their policy recommendations are "science".
All in all it was and is a huge and ugly mess. Given this reality, "just follow the scientific consensus" might have been a good prior, but after updating on all the evidence it doesn't look like a good posterior recommendation in this particular case.