Something people don’t get: more skepticism about climate models should lead to more “green” ecological conservationist policies not more lax pro-pollution ones. Why? Simply, uncertainty about the models increases fragility (and thickens the left tail), no matter what the benefits can be in the right tail.
Added the section to the precautionary principle. Please discuss but stick to rigor and avoid buzzwords.https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIUUthSzJqUnRPbDg/edit
via Facebook.
Most people don’t understand what it means to be skeptical of experts. Skepticism should be one-sided, or should lead to one-sided actions, the one that is “wise” in the precautionary sense. If the majority of experts tell you water is poisonous, don’t exercise your skepticism by drinking. But if experts tell you water is “safe”, you are invited to be skeptic, or err on the side of skepticism. Likewise with climatic matters: we cannot affort to be skeptical of models, even if you knew they are wrong. This explains why you can be equally skeptical of both economic and climatic modelers, but distrust one class and trust another. We are fragile if we trust economists, and fragile if we distrust climate people.
(Newcomers, please keep comments rigorous and make sure you understand the point before posting. And stick to the logic of the argument. And unless you are familiar with the concavity argument, please don’t post.)
via Most people don’t understand what it… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Facebook.