There can be no doubt that those who consider anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to be a problem worthy of the epithet ‘emergency’ have increasingly invoked extreme weather events in support of that view. It is not my intention here to argue whether or not such events confirm the critical level of risk posited for AGW. Instead, I wish to place such arguments within the context provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its observations regarding the perception of risk. In particular, I wish to remind the reader of what was said in Chapter 2 of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 5 (AR5): Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies. I shall argue that, whilst developments in causal analysis have undoubtedly enabled a more scientific assessment of the significance of extreme weather events, it was the IPCC’s declared desire to manage perceptions of risk that provided the prime motivation for the recent emphasis on weather event attribution.

Since I wish to undertake a reasonably thorough analysis of a substantial document, this article will be the first of a series that maps broadly onto the section headings of AR5, Chapter 2. In this first of the series, I will be commenting upon the chapter’s executive summary and introduction. In subsequent articles I will elaborate upon my proposition by covering each of the document’s various detailed sections; namely:

2.3: Risk and uncertainty in climate change

2.4: Risk perception and responses to risk and uncertainty

2.5: Tools and decision aids for analysing uncertainty and risk

2.6: Managing uncertainty, risk and learning

You will note that I will not be covering section 2.2 (Metrics of uncertainty and risk). This is because I have previously dealt with its shortcomings in a previous article (The Confidence of Living in the Matrix).

What the IPCC Wants Executives to Know

The first indication of the IPCC’s strategy for persuasion is provided in the opening paragraph of the executive summary for AR5, Chapter 2:

“The scientific understanding of climate change and the impact it has on different levels of decision-making and policy options has increased since the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). In addition, there is a growing recognition that decision makers often rely on intuitive thinking processes rather than undertaking a systematic analysis of options in a deliberative fashion. It is appropriate that climate change risk management strategies take into account both forms of thinking when considering policy choices where there is risk and uncertainty.”  

The odd thing about the above statement is that the ‘growing recognition that decision makers often rely on intuitive thinking processes’ had already entered the mainstream of decision theory well before the publication of AR4. Therefore, it seems strange that the authors should be claiming new developments in the psychology of decision-making as the reason why they should now be so preoccupied with the relevance of intuitive thinking processes (having previously shown no such preoccupation). What we are seeing here, therefore, is a storyline that covers up the reality. The more plausible explanation for AR5’s new focus is that the IPCC had come to realise that its previous efforts of persuasion had not been sufficiently effective, largely due to a failure to fully recognise how decision-making takes place in practice, and it had therefore failed to exploit the already well recognised methods by which risk perception can be manipulated. As coyly explained in the next paragraph:

“By understanding the systematic biases that individuals utilize in dealing with climate change problems, one can more effectively communicate the nature of the climate change risk. An understanding of the simplified decision rules employed by decision makers in making choices may be helpful in designing policies that encourage the adoption of mitigation and adaptation measures.”  

This is an explicit declaration of the intent to use insights into how people think in order to ‘encourage’ acceptance of propositions and policy through ‘effective communication’. Of course, whilst one is dealing with efforts to overcome harmful cognitive bias, such an approach could be considered nothing more than benign and practicable. The declaration becomes more problematic, however, when one considers the extent to which cognitive biases can affect all those involved in a debate, and the extent to which psychological manipulation can be used for the promulgation of both truth and faith.

The executive summary continues with this cognitive theme, making statements such as, “Decision processes often include both deliberative and intuitive thinking” and “Laypersons tend to judge risks differently than experts”. Claims are also made for the effectiveness of formal expert judgement and elicitation processes for the characterization of uncertainty. I will be covering such matters later in this series of articles but, in the meantime, there are two further points made in the executive summary that are worth highlighting now. Firstly, there is the following:

“Individuals and organizations that link science with policy grapple with several different forms of uncertainty. These uncertainties include absence of prior agreement on framing of problems and ways to scientifically investigate them (paradigmatic uncertainty), lack of information or knowledge for characterizing phenomena (epistemic uncertainty), and incomplete or conflicting scientific findings (translational uncertainty).”  

In my professional capacity I have seen many different taxonomies of uncertainty, but I have to say this is by far the most obscure and idiosyncratic. Firstly, it is difficult to see how ‘incomplete or conflicting scientific findings’ is substantially different from a ‘lack of information or knowledge for characterising phenomena’; they are both epistemic uncertainties that amount to the same thing. Furthermore, whilst one could see how such epistemic difficulties could lead to disagreement over the framing of a problem, the confusion this may cause cannot be justifiably cited as a new category of uncertainty; it would simply be a misperception caused by inconsistency. Even more strange is the failure to acknowledge what the rest of the world seems to believe is the most fundamental dichotomy lying at the heart of uncertainty, i.e. that existing between the epistemic and the aleatory. Indeed, it is most odd that the innate variability of the subject under study (i.e. climate) should go unmentioned, given how much interest the scientific community and policy makers have shown in tipping points and feedback loops.

To my mind, this phoney portrayal of the framing of problems as if it were a legitimate source of uncertainty, combined with a failure to identify a major source of true uncertainty, rather betrays the tendentious purpose that the authors had in mentioning uncertainty at all. Ostensibly, uncertainty may be the subject, but a favoured problem framing seems to be the objective.

Having thus offered their characterisation of uncertainty, the relationship between uncertainty and the imperative for action is then made by the IPCC as follows:

“If one sets a global mean temperature (GMT) target, then normative analyses that include uncertainty on the climate response to elevated GHG concentration, suggest that investments in mitigation measures should be accelerated. Under the assumption of nonlinear impacts of a GMT rise, inclusion of uncertainty along the causal chain from emissions to impacts suggests enhancing mitigation.”  

It is ironic that this statement should follow on directly from the IPCC’s declaration of the importance of problem framing, since this is indeed a highly problematic framing of the importance of uncertainty. It is basically the assertion that uncertainty is not the sceptic’s friend – a mantra that has since been used very prominently by the likes of Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky. However, it is an argument that relies heavily upon the assumption that all uncertainty can be captured in a probability density function and thereby combined with non-linear impacts to demonstrate the imperative for a precautionary approach. Unfortunately, this is a simplistic framing that treats epistemic uncertainty as though it were somehow unscientific.

The IPCC’s Idea of a Risk Management Framework

The introductory section of a document normally provides a summary of what is to be addressed by its various sections. Having been provided with such information, the reader may then focus upon those sections that are of particular interest. In that regard, the introduction to Chapter 2 of AR5 is no exception. However, in the case of Chapter 2, this precis of section content serves a further purpose, since each section is deemed to describe an element of a ‘risk management framework’; or, as the document puts it:

“There is a growing recognition that today’s policy choices are highly sensitive to uncertainties and risk associated with the climate system and the actions of other decision makers. The choice of climate policies can thus be viewed as an exercise in risk management (Kunreuther et al., 2013a). Figure 2.1 suggests a risk management framework that serves as the structure of the chapter.”

Once again, the IPCC presents the argument that the new focus of AR5 is a result of ‘growing recognition’, though one might reasonably observe that it is a recognition that should have been fully formed at the outset. Furthermore, to say that ‘The choice of climate policies can thus be viewed as an exercise in risk management’, rather than to simply point out that choosing policy is an element of risk management, calls into question just exactly what the IPCC really thinks its framework is designed for. Figure 2.1 is an ambiguous diagram showing text boxes linked by arrows in such a way that it is not possible to discern whether it is to be interpreted as a flow chart or an entity-relationship diagram (or both). At first glance it may look like the framework is a plan-do-check-act cycle designed to manage risk but it is, in fact, nothing of the sort. It is simply a framework for thinking about how the implementation and setting of climate policy is likely to pan out when it encounters the rational and irrational responses of the various decision-makers with their various agendas. So rather than describing the processes, phases and activities required for the effective management of risk and uncertainty, the IPCC is concentrating upon a tuning cycle for the application of cognitive techniques and interventions required to promote compliance with the authoritative world view. This focus may be why the document frames uncertainty in purely epistemic terms. Or, as the introduction to Chapter 2 puts it:

“‘Uncertainty’ denotes a cognitive state of incomplete knowledge that results from a lack of information and / or from disagreement about what is known or even knowable.”  

A framework that uses a definition of uncertainty that omits the inherent variability resulting from the behaviour of the subject under study could not purport to be a framework for the management of the actual risk presented. As far as AR5, Chapter 2 is concerned, risk management is the management of cognitive states. It matters a great deal, therefore, to know just what else the IPCC believes it can achieve by such management. In particular, one has to wonder what the impact might be of inculcating a sense of emergency.

These are matters that I intend delving into within the remainder of this series of articles. I shall start in the next by taking a more detailed look at what the IPCC considers to be the taxonomy of uncertainties confronting the decision maker, how these influence the decision-making process and how, in general, such influence may be tamed or exploited.

14 Comments

  1. Elsewhere I have commented on the fact that in technical papers the deliberate use of technical terms and more convoluted language than is absolutely necessary acts as a barrier to understanding by the general (or even the initially interested) reader. This applies particularly to extracts from the IPCC Assessment Report 5 cited by John.

    I carefully read the extract below several times and had to restrain myself several times from skipping ahead in the vague hope of achieving meaning or enlightenment.

    “If one sets a global mean temperature (GMT) target, then normative analyses that include uncertainty on the climate response to elevated GHG concentration, suggest that investments in mitigation measures should be accelerated. Under the assumption of nonlinear impacts of a GMT rise, inclusion of uncertainty along the causal chain from emissions to impacts suggests enhancing mitigation.”

    I was used to reading technical texts in a variety of different subjects when assessing final year undergraduate projects, yet either I have lost this knack or some technical literature has gotten worse. Perhaps also, because my position no longer requires me to stick with “difficult” writing, I’ve grown lazy. But my eyes glaze over so easily.

    I hasten to add that I do understand the extract after multiple tries. I am left with the impression that it could have been written more simply without any loss of meaning or content.

    Like

  2. Alan,

    Indeed. I pass the observation in a later article that the authors are not giving me the impression that they have ever had to earn a living by implementing the theory they purport to understand – it all comes across as being very scholarly, complete with profuse citations to keep the tutor happy. That’s not to say the business world would have done much better, with its jargon of synergies and leveraging. Still, the very fact that there is no management-speak but plenty of scholar-speak in the document is quite telling.

    Like

  3. Quite apart from the very good points John seeks to make, this whole debate seems to me to go back to one simple quote:

    “If one sets a global mean temperature (GMT) target…”.

    Apologies, John, for going off topic, and I promise to try to concentrate and focus in future, but this is one of the things about climate hysteria that has always struck me as odd. This planet has been, so we are told (and I have no reason to doubt it), in existence for c 4.5 billion years. During that time, which makes not just the last few centuries but the whole of humankind’s time on the planet little more than the blink of an eye n the context of the planet’s life-span, the planet’s global mean temperature has fluctuated wildly between a steaming hothouse and snowball earth and all points in-between, and those variations have taken place probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of times.

    That being the case, why then do climate hysterics think that it makes sense to have a global mean temperature target? Why is the global mean temperature of the late 18th or mid-19th century the paradigm that must be preserved at all costs? It’s one of the many logical failings in the whole climate hysteria project that I have never understood.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. How many people have read AR5? Ballpark, I’ve probably read about 100 pages. Maybe a bit more but probably not 200. I usually dip into the relevant chapter, search for a keyword, read forwards and backwards or tab to the next occurrence. I suspect that its sheer size is off-putting to many, to the extent that even folk who have made a deliberate study of climate change would have difficulty saying exactly what the IPCC says (for each chapter of Denierland I included a pithy summary of this – despite not having read the entire document). I mostly praised the IPCC for not predicting impending catastrophe – in fact compared to the Lancet Countdown, it is veritably saintly. Nevertheless, there are mistakes: Steve McIntyre recently published a blog about a section on crop yield with an error that went the “right way” as far as alarm is concerned. I think I am groping towards saying that the very size of AR5 deters sceptics from tackling it, but that if they were to do so they would likely find much to complain about. (There’s a paper about an extinction due to climate change that was cited 9 times in AR5; pity the beast in question is not actually extinct.)

    Reading the excerpts John has given seems to reinforce the notion that science has fundamentally changed over the decades, so that it is now acceptable to advocate for particular policies. In the old days deciding between mitigation and adaptation would have been left to politicians. The excerpt repeated by Alan could just as well have included adaptation and even freewheeling as options. (Uncertainty is not supposed to be the friend of freewheeling, but bearing in mind the duration of World War 2 and the mobilisation that went with it, there’s a strong likelihood that if apocalyptic events really did start, then the world could knuckle down and fix the climate from a standing start.)

    You can get away with describing methods of getting the politicians to do what you want if they are buried in heaps of confounding verbiage in a document that could keep Texas warm for a week. But as scientists we are not supposed to be wedded to any particular outcome.

    …the IPCC is concentrating upon a tuning cycle for the application of cognitive techniques and interventions required to promote compliance with the authoritative world view.

    Worth repeating.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Mark,

    Actually, you are not as off topic as you might think. I don’t want to say too much at this point because I don’t get onto the subject of cognitive bias until part three. But (spoiler alert) I can reveal that one bias that particularly troubles the IPCC is so-called status quo bias. This is deemed to be a favourite of climate change deniers since they use it as an excuse not to implement changes to society designed to avert future climate change impacts. Apparently, we all like society as it is and focus too much on what we have to lose by making the changes, and not enough upon what we have to gain. Of course, the IPCC doesn’t say anything about the status quo bias that is inherent in wanting to keep the weather just the way it is. The fact is that we need to do this because we have built our societies around the short-sighted assumption that the climate will not change, even though everything we have ever known about it says that it will!

    As I say, I don’t wish to say too much more just yet.

    Like

  6. John, I think you should realise how good your writing is. Three people now have commented and in two instances (and I suspect all three if you comment on JITs) you have to resist responding in full, pleading that you have dealt with those matters in later parts. You have lead us foreword without us knowing.

    Like

  7. Jit,

    Your comment made me smile because the mischievous idea had occurred to me that the IPCC thought they could get away with brazenly publishing their devious plan to hoodwink us all, safe in the knowledge that no one outside of their own camp will read it because they made it all too obscure and long-winded.

    It reminds me of a computer programmer I used to work with who would occasionally put the following comment in the code:

    ‘The customer is a knob jockey who is easily fooled and who needs to know our quality manager is asleep on the job’.

    To this day I cannot be sure that I found them all.

    Like

  8. Alan,

    “…the IPCC is concentrating upon a tuning cycle for the application of cognitive techniques and interventions required to promote compliance with the authoritative world view.”

    It’s a bit of a mouthful, I will admit. The gist is that the IPCC risk management framework does not seek the continuous refinement of measures designed to control risk, instead it is refining the measures designed to promote acceptance of their particular perception of risk. These measures include exploitation of cognitive biases and interventions that constrain the decision maker. I trust that this will become clearer as I proceed.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. “It is simply a framework for thinking about how the implementation and setting of climate policy is likely to pan out when it encounters the rational and irrational responses of the various decision-makers with their various agendas.”

    Which has become redundant anyhow in the sense that we now know how this pans out, because we can measure it. For instance, the pretty large and expensive policy response of global Renewables Deployment. Which turns out to be irrational, in the sense that it is demonstrably dominated by cultural attitudes across nations: https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/19/cultural-motivations-for-wind-and-solar-renewables-deployment/

    “In particular, one has to wonder what the impact might be of inculcating a sense of emergency.”

    I think if this was any emergency other than certain imminent catastrophic climate-change, all the social psychologists who believe in the latter would agree that emotive bias would result. That isn’t necessarily a net bad thing; for a real and imminent large-scale social emergency, ‘acting as one’ has advantages (which is why we do it), albeit in modern times this can still go badly wrong because complex data-related or technology-related nuances aren’t suited to blunt emotive group reaction.

    However, they appear anyhow to think instead that the sense of emergency needs to be as strong as possible to overcome an assembled list of 30 or 40 (or more, I saw somewhere over 100) inherent biases that cause folks not to ‘act’. Per above the data says that the sense of emergency has indeed borne fruit in terms of action, but that this action does not align to the climate or climate exposure of nations, or any physical or rational variable, but is nevertheless aligned across nations not only to cultural attitudes on climate-change, but also thereby to a totally cultural phenomenon, i.e. religiosity.

    I think this series should make a great baseline for seeing how AR6 deals with the same issues.

    JIT: “How many people have read AR5?”

    Likewise read only small portions. But that did once include every mention of the word ‘catastrophe(s)’, ‘catastrophic’, and similar meanings such as ‘disaster(s)’, ‘disastrous’, plus ‘tipping-point’, ‘cascade’, and various others.

    Like

  10. thanks for this John
    have to agree with 1st comment by Alan – confusing or what (Mark’s comment below that also shows how silly this has become)

    could say more but you guy’s have probably covered them

    Like

  11. ps – when they say – “If one sets a global mean temperature (GMT) target” I’m reminded of covid & weight loss, some people/news seem to think if you don’t hit it dead centre you’ve failed!!!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.