There are two types
of "experts" in the world:
Competent experts
and
incompetent "experts".
In climate science,
the competent experts
focus on the past --
trying to explain
past climate changes,
and having lots of
unanswered questions.
The incompetent
"experts" focus
on the future --
predicting the future
climate, which,
due to their bias,
is always going to be
worse than the past
climate !
These bad news
predictions started
in the late 1950s,
and ramped up a lot
in the late 1980s.
In 2018 they reached
a level I can only
describe as "hysterical".
The negative climate
predictions come from
primarily leftist staffed
organizations:
Governments
and universities.
I call those "experts"
incompetent because
not one of their
bad news predictions
has ever come true !
Unless you consider
warmer winter nights
in Alaska, over the
past 50 years, to be
bad news !
The incompetent
climate "experts"
get attention by
making confident,
scary, but always
wrong, predictions
of the future climate.
They depend on the
"appeal to authority"
logical fallacy, which
almost all leftists
fall for !
They are somewhat
disappointed now,
because other
incompetent "experts"
have been getting
attention by making
wrong, scary
predictions about
COVID-19 !
I'll be kind, and call
politicians: "Political
decision makers".
Many political
decision-makers
end up making
bad decisions,
even AFTER
they consult
with experts.
Because
the people
believed to
be experts
can be
competent, or
incompetent.
An incompetent
"expert" may be
a very good
communicator,
well dressed,
very persuasive,
and very confident,
but also wrong.
Policy decisions
are often made
after the because
decision-maker:
(1)
Consulted with
incompetent
"experts"
or
(2)
Did not consult with
a variety of competent
experts,
or
(3)
Ignored good advice
or
(4)
Followed bad advice.
RISKS:
(A)
A question
of which policy
is better may not
be knowable,
so an expert's
"educated guess"
really has little
or no value.
(B)
An “expert”
who claims
to know
what policy
will work best,
may be a person
who is very
reluctant to say
"I don't know".
(C)
Choosing only experts
you expect to have
preferences that
match your beliefs.
It's easy to ask
a question
of experts.
Answering is
tough, especially
with insufficient
data to support
a right answer.
Experts know they
risk their reputation
by admitting
to uncertainty.
They are too reluctant
to say “I don’t know”,
or "We don't know".
It's hard to get
experts to admit
to their uncertainty.
But its easy to ask
the most important
follow-up question:
" How do you know that ? "
And then demand a good
answer -- which is not
"Because I'm
an expert.
and I say so" !
If an expert is making
a prediction, you
already know most
predictions of the
future are wrong.
His or her
track record
for predictions
made in the past,
should be reviewed.
Three types of
incompetent
"experts":
(1)
Those with
incomplete
knowledge,
and/or a
biased view
of a subject.
(2)
Those who do not
recognize that their
"educated guess",
made without data,
is just an opinion.
(3)
The "expert"
reluctant to say
"I don't know", or
"No one knows",
who covers up
that fact by
guessing an answer,
and stating it with
great confidence,
and not admitting
to uncertainty.
An expert cares
about his reputation
for always having
"answers".
He also knows
he might get away
with guessing.
If an "expert"
guesses wrong,
he may believe
being caught
is no worse
than saying
"I don't know"
in the first place.
Competent experts
have two advantages
over incompetent
"experts":
(1)
Knowing
whether the
ideal policy
is knowable.
(2)
Then knowing
which policy
is better.
Consulting multiple
experts, with varying
opinions, is always
a good idea.
Competent experts
are more likely to admit
uncertainty, and
less likely to guess.
But ...
there is still
a great reluctance
among all experts
to answer any question
with "No one knows".