Given that net zero is a risk management response to a perceived threat, one would hope that those who are both directly and indirectly responsible for establishing such policies would have a sound theoretical and conceptual understanding of risk and uncertainty. In particular, one would hope that they fully understand the basic principles of risk management and appreciate how risk and uncertainty are related. Unfortunately, although we are perfectly entitled to assume that such concepts are fully understood by those driving climate policy, this is actually not the case. I firmly believe that this shortcoming is one of the most important issues to be addressed by the sceptic, since it is a shortcoming that severely impairs the ability to make the correct risk-based decisions under uncertainty. Indeed, it could be argued that our government’s uncompromising pursuit of a carbon-free future is as a direct result of such a miscalculation. It is therefore a matter of great personal frustration that the publicising and addressing of this issue has not been a priority amongst professional and academic risk scientists. For too long now, climate scientists have been allowed to get away with professing a superior expertise in the evaluation and communication of risk and uncertainty, unchallenged by domain experts within the broader community of risk scientists.

Despite being something of an amateur when it comes to risk science, I have done what little I can by writing articles here that attempt to clarify the relevant technical issues. For example, I have challenged the IPCC’s concept of a ‘risk management framework’, given that it is predominantly focused upon psychological manipulation aimed at engineering compliance with policy. I have drawn attention to a profound and widespread failure within the climate science community to understand uncertainty’s philosophical framework and how this has resulted in an over-reliance on probability distributions when quantifying risk and uncertainty. I have taken a prominent communicator of climate science to task for advocating the view that gaps in knowledge are a layman’s misconception of what uncertainty is. I have warned of the important distinction to be made between risk and uncertainty aversions and what this means for those who advocate a precautionary approach. I have drawn attention to the relevance of ergodicity and have warned against the misuse of terminology such as ‘black swan’. And I have tried to point out how causal narratives are routinely oversimplified in the interest of promoting a ‘correct’ framing of the problem.1

But most of all, I have been at pains to point out the dangers of using levels of expert consensus as a metric for uncertainty. In particular, I expressed concern that, when it came to issuing advice to the IPCC’s lead authors on how to standardise on the evaluation and communication of risk and uncertainty, the supposed IPCC experts dished up a set of guidelines that were so confused, ambiguous and internally incoherent that one had to conclude that any statements subsequently emanating from the IPCC regarding risk, uncertainty or confidence would have to be treated with considerable suspicion.

Be that as it may, I cannot hope to exercise the required levels of influence on my own. I have no academic standing to leverage and virtually no online following. It is for this reason that I was particularly gratified to see Dr Judith Curry publish a book that covers many of the themes you will have seen me address. Furthermore, it is even more gratifying to see that a highly-respected risk scientist, Dr Terje Aven, Professor of Risk Analysis and Risk Management at the University of Stavanger, Norway, has tweeted the following regarding Dr Curry’s book:

I am impressed by the way Curry has addressed important scientific issues related to climate change, and in particular uncertainty and risk…It is seldom to see climate scientists dealing with risk science issues in such a professional way, giving due credit to the scientific literature, summarizing and drawing conclusions on important climate topics.

He goes on to say:

Risk science knowledge provides many different concepts and perspectives, and being able to develop a holistic and consistent presentation based on this knowledge is not straightforward. But this is exactly what Curry has done. Climate Uncertainty and Risk provides a comprehensive exposition of risk and uncertainty issues related to climate change, based on contemporary risk science…[T]his book represents a very strong contribution to the scientific discourse on climate uncertainty and risk.

Given that Dr Curry has been accused by fellow climate scientists of failing to understand uncertainty,2 it is interesting that she should be receiving such validation from a leading domain expert.

Moreover, an examination of Dr Aven’s own publication history makes it clear that he shares many of my concerns when it comes to the treatment of risk and uncertainty within the climate science community.3 Indeed, when he did his own review of the IPCC’s guidelines for lead authors on how to standardise on the evaluation and communication of risk and uncertainty, he came to the same conclusions that I had, making him, to my knowledge, the only high-profile risk scientist to have taken up the cause by pointing out the conceptual failings within the climate science community.4 Professor Aven’s concluding remarks say it all:

In this article, we have argued that the IPCC assessment reports fall short of a theoretically and conceptually convincing foundation when it comes to the treatment of risk and uncertainties…The important concepts of confidence and likelihood used in the IPCC documents remain too vague to be used consistently and meaningfully in practice.

That said, it is important to appreciate that Professor Aven is not a climate scientist and so reserves judgement regarding the significance of his criticisms:

The critical remarks on the treatment of uncertainty and risk should not be interpreted as an expression of skepticism toward the main insights from IPCC climate change reports or even misjudged as a critical position toward the major assumption of anthropogenic climate change. This is also not our main field of expertise. The main purpose of this article is to contribute to strengthening the quality of the complex and ambiguous assessment of future climate change by suggesting improvements in the analytic handling of risks and uncertainty. This can assist [the] IPCC in making its messages and recommendations more robust.

I would endorse that caveat. When I criticise the IPCC’s handling of risk and uncertainty I do not do so because I seek to challenge the scientific fundamentals of climate change. However, I do believe that policy-makers who are making decisions based upon a scientist’s statements of confidence and likelihood have a right to expect that those statements are not employing terminology that is ‘too vague to be used consistently and meaningfully in practice.’ Nor should it be too much to ask that they be working with a ‘theoretically and conceptually convincing foundation when it comes to the treatment of risk and uncertainties’. As Professor Aven says, when we speculate upon the future direction of the climate, and what to do about it, we are dealing with a complex and ambiguous assessment. Therefore, this is not so much about the science as it is about the making of risk-based decisions under uncertainty. If, as a result, you are going to propose a course of action that is likely to immiserate nations and destroy economies, I believe it behoves those responsible to at least master the concepts that lie at the heart of their deliberations. When Professor Aven writes of assisting the IPCC ‘in making its messages and recommendations more robust’ he should instead be referring to them being sufficiently safe and reliable. In my view, given the weaknesses within the theoretical and conceptual foundation used by the IPCC, the resulting messages and recommendations are far from that.

Footnotes:

[1] I could go on by mentioning my surprise that the IPCC should think that a ‘story telling’ approach to extreme weather event attribution could possibly be characterised as a method for analysing deep uncertainty, or that anyone could think of uncertainty as being ‘actionable knowledge’. There was also my article on Ellsberg’s paradox and how it leads to the need for robust decision-making, and my despair at seeing supposed experts fall for the transposed conditional.

[2] For example, James Annan seemed less than impressed with Dr Curry’s attempt to explain non-binary logic as applied to the question of anthropogenic attribution.

[3] Readers of this blog may also be interested to hear that I approached Professor Aven to seek his views on my Cliscep review of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 5, Working Group 3 (AR5 WG3): ‘Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies’. His response was terse but no less reassuring for that: “And that first article on IPCC was great”.

[4] That said, Aven’s paper cites a number of climate scientist reviews of the IPCC’s handling of risk and uncertainty, not all of which are fully supportive.

26 Comments

  1. An excellent reasonable request for an issue controlled by people who have gotten away with rejecting reasonable requests. NZ policies may use words that sound like “risk management” however NZ has nothing to do with risk management.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “NZ policies may use words that sound like “risk management” however NZ has nothing to do with risk management.”

    You may very well be right. The pernicious effects that instruments of global governance are having on sovereign policies is a theme that this site should be taking far more seriously.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Thanks John,

    My initial takeaway from that article is that this is critically important:

    As Professor Aven says, when we speculate upon the future direction of the climate, and what to do about it, we are dealing with a complex and ambiguous assessment. Therefore, this is not so much about the science as it is about the making of risk-based decisions under uncertainty. If, as a result, you are going to propose a course of action that is likely to immiserate nations and destroy economies, I believe it behoves those responsible to at least master the concepts that lie at the heart of their deliberations.

    Hear hear, say I.

    As for your comment below the line:

    The pernicious effect that instruments of global governance are having on sovereign policies is a theme that this site should be taking far more seriously.

    I don’t disagree, and would encourage you to make the point repeatedly. Here, we all play to our strengths (and at the same time, I hope, recognise our weaknesses). Your strength is in an area where I am weak, though I hope to continue learning from you. I think there are three things (at least) that we here, with our respective strengths can do, vis-a-vis climate change and related energy policy.

    First, as Jaime (and perhaps you) would insist – challenge the science.

    Second, challenge the narrative – whether it be that net zero is essential, that it will save us money, that wildfires are caused by climate change, that wildfires are more extensive thanks to climate change, that COPs have led to agreements and treaties to reduce emissions, or whatever it may be.

    Third, hold feet to the fire regarding the lack of understanding on the part of those making decisions, regarding “the making of risk-based decisions under uncertainty” etc.

    No doubt that list could be extended substantially. I hope others may feel inclined to add to it. We have to keep at it, especially now that on a global level the worm is very definitely turning.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. I believe it was the AR5 report where climate as risk came to the fore. A scientist put it this way at the time–Sarah E. Myhre, Ph.D.

    What is our role in public leadership as scientists? I would suggest a few action items: Work to reduce risk and cost for the public; steward the public’s interest in evidence; and be steady and committed to the scientific process of dissent, revision and discovery. This means communicating risk when necessary. We would never fault an oncologist for informing patients about the cancer risks that come with smoking. Why would we expect Earth scientists to be any different, when we’re just as certain?

    We are living through a crisis of trust between the American public and climate scientists, and we must extend ourselves, as scientists and public servants, to rebuild transparency and trust with the public. I will start: I want the global community to mitigate the extreme risk of the warmest future climate scenarios. And, I want my kid to eat salmon and ski with his grandkids in the future. I am invested in that cooler, safer, more sustainable future — for your kids and for mine. Just don’t call me an alarmist.

    This provides a teachable moment concerning the rhetorical maneuver to present climate as a risky business. The technique typically starts with a particular instance of actual risk and then makes a gross generalization so that the risk is exaggerated beyond reason.

    https://rclutz.com/2017/06/23/climate-risky-business/

    Liked by 2 people

  6. John R, thank you for this commentary. I think you approach the heart of the West’s weakness and hence the reason for its subsequent severe policy failures when you write, “I believe it behoves those responsible to at least master the concepts that lie at the heart of their deliberations.” Too often do we see the cavalier approach of the gifted amateur masquerading as expert opinion that must not be questioned in our increasingly authoritarian public square. For example, I addressed the question of “insufficient curiosity” on the part of various key UK players in this comment:- https://cliscep.com/2024/10/14/the-case-against-net-zero-a-seventh-update/#comment-156331

    We should also be aware that policy errors (as judged by the public) may arise not only from lack of competence but also through regulatory capture of the governance process, or as you put it in your 2.29pm comment “The pernicious effect that instruments of global governance are having on sovereign policies is a theme that this site should be taking far more seriously.” Well said!(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) Regards, John C.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Ron,

    Well it was certainly AR5 when psychological manipulation of risk perception came to the fore, that’s for sure.

    John C,

    As has been said on this site many times before, it is very hard sometimes to untangle the effects of incompetence from those of an underlying political agenda. I do believe both are factors to consider.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. John R: “…it is very hard sometimes to untangle the effects of incompetence from those of an underlying political agenda. I do believe both are factors to consider.”

    I completely agree. I suspect the only rea of disagreement with regard to such a phrase, here at Cliscep anyway, is the extent to which the underlying political agenda is malign or well-intended (but stupid and dangerous, nevertheless). I think the latter, on the whole, but I may be persuaded otherwise with regard to some individuals, who shall remain nameless.

    Like

  9. As far as I can tell, there are two issues here, which are related, but separate: uncertainty and risk. There are a plurality of uncertainty types which feed into the singular concept of risk. Climate scientists are woefully inept at translating uncertainty into risk, and this doesn’t have much to do with climate science as such. But climate scientists are also pretty crap at evaluating uncertainty, in its various forms, and this has a lot to do with climate science. So basically, what we have here are a bunch of politically active, grant-chasing, career-motivated scientists, who can’t or won’t robustly and honestly evaluate uncertainty, who then inexpertly and incompetently translate that uncertainty into risk, which then gets translated by politicians into wrecking ball climate policies. Great. Fantastic.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Jaime,

    The problem is not just that they don’t understand risk and uncertainty; it’s that they are convinced they are the only people who do. For example, the whole of AR5 is premised on the assumption that climate scientists have this deliberative and knowing understanding, whilst we hapless laypeople, with only our intuitive grasping, have no idea. (“Laypersons tend to judge risks differently than experts”). Fortunately, those clever behavioural scientists know how to trick us into thinking properly.

    Then Peter Gleick seemed very sure of himself when he dismissed  Michael Shellenberger’s “colloquial” notion of what uncertainty is all about and contrasted it with a supposedly scientific notion of uncertainty (which turned out to be just aleatory uncertainty). Lewandowsky went one step further to suggest that those of us who advocate the reduction of epistemic uncertainty as a precursor to risk assessment (standard practice outside of climate science) are guilty of perpetrating a SCAM (‘scientific certainty argumentation method’). Don’t you just love the arrogance? And yet he’s just another ‘expert’ who seems to believe that you can discern all you need to know about uncertainty from looking at a probability distribution.

    And into this arena enters Judith Curry, to the mocking laughter of her colleagues. She tries to stress the role of evidence theory but James Annan already knows all you need to know and dismisses her proposals with: “I consider myself reasonably ecumenical in my approach towards the more esoteric probabilistic ideas such as Dempster-Schafer theory and imprecise probability, and have no real objection to them – I mostly take the view that we should merely try to do standard Bayesian probability a bit better before deciding it is inadequate for the task at hand”.

    He seems perfectly at ease with the idea of common or garden probability being the sufficient concept to work with, undisturbed by the fact that philosophers still can’t agree on what it actually means. That should be a giant red flag for him, but apparently not.

    And don’t get me started on Ken “call me professor” Rice, who came on here to dismiss my concerns as ‘pedantry’. The next time he dares to show his face I will just refer him to Professor Aven. We will then see how an amateur climate scientist gets on with a professional risk scientist. I’d buy tickets for that one.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Mark,

    This isn’t a discussion I particularly want to get into right now. But just to give you a flavour of where I would be coming from, I offer you this video of a talk given by Thomas Sowell on the subject of Cosmic Justice:

    The relevant point he makes is that when ideologies are pursued simply to make the ideologues feel good about themselves, the outcome often involves the malign, i.e. the people who are supposed to be beneficiaries of the ideology are actually harmed the most. The example he uses is that of equity, in which the ideal being pursued does no one any favours in its execution.

    Recent history has provided a number of other choice examples, such as the mutilation of children in the cause of safeguarding the right to self-identification. And then there is the imprisonment of a whole citizenship to protect the citizens from harm, or the vaccination of children when they have nothing to gain and everything to lose, ostensibly to protect the NHS. Then there is the removal of free speech in order to save democracy. And, of course, the industrialisation of the countryside to help protect the environment.

    For the purposes of our debate, the ideology concerned is that of global governance, with more than a hint of communistic overtones. Specifically, the UN’s Agenda 2030 looks like a raft of lofty ambitions, but they can’t be achieved without a good deal of destructive policy. One doesn’t need to get involved in second-guessing whether or not individuals have evil intent in order to recognise the dangers involved when such an agenda is pursued at all costs simply to make the UN delegates feel good about themselves. The UK government is very much on this trip, as evidenced by this:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75176e40f0b6360e47348f/Agenda-2030-Report4.pdf

    In short, I think the question as to whether a policy is malign or well-intended is often a false dichotomy.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. John R, you commented yesterday at 7.33pm, “… it is very hard sometimes to untangle the effects of incompetence from those of an underlying political agenda. I do believe both are factors to consider.” While I agree with your comment, I think there is a further dimension to consider, namely the moral aspect of policies, especially from the perspective of those who are involved in their promotion, planning and execution.

    While there has been no end of outrage among the climateers at the damage that climate change will (allegedly) do in the world at large, there has been very little consideration of the huge costs that Net Zero and related laws will incur here in Blighty. Why have those promoting, planning and executing these laws had so little regard for their fellow citizens? Perhaps that is moral hazard in ‘woke’ action.

    I am puzzled and frustrated by the extremely casual attitude of TPTB here in the UK, although not at all surprised by the attitude of the many international players for whom the UK’s costs are of no interest whatsoever. Regards, John C.

    Like

  14. Jaime,

    “Annan sounds like a real arse.”

    You may think so — I could hardly comment.

    However, he certainly wasn’t short of confidence when he took Ben Pile (formerly of this parish) to task for accusing Lewandowsky of trying to re-invent the precautionary principle:

    https://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/06/costs-of-uncertainty.html

    As Annan tries to patiently explain, “it’s just a simple application of standard economic analysis under uncertainty, which is implicit in all academic work in this area”. He obviously struggled to see how Ben could be so stupid as to not appreciate this.

    Well, perhaps it’s because Annan’s ‘simple’ analysis only works when the uncertainty is treated as if it is all some sort of exercise in measurement theory – which is emphatically not the case with climate science uncertainty!

    Try again Annan and stop being so arrogantly dismissive – is what I would arrogantly dismiss him with.

    Like

  15. John C,

    Yes, these are the moral hazzards I alluded to earlier in my reply to Mark.

    However, if I may stick to my theme of an assumed competence, there is plenty that can still be said regarding the relevant technicalities. For example, I have yet to see anyone involved with climate policy provide a convincing account of how risks should be managed. Not one has explained how risk efficiency is to be achieved, the relevance of global equivalence or ALARP principles, or even the processes, stages and activities involved.

    As I said, the issues would seem a lot simpler if we were dealing with practitioners who were as good as they make themselves out to be.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. John R at 12.51pm:

    Recent history has provided a number of other choice examples, such as the mutilation of children in the cause of safeguarding the right to self-identification. And then there is the imprisonment of a whole citizenship to protect the citizens from harm, or the vaccination of children when they have nothing to gain and everything to lose, ostensibly to protect the NHS. Then there is the removal of free speech in order to save democracy. And, of course, the industrialisation of the countryside to help protect the environment.

    I can’t (and don’t) argue with that. What’s of particular interest to me is that by and large (there will be exceptions – there usually are) the examples you give will all apply to the very same type of person (Guardianistas generally – apologies to Alan Kendall, if he’s still reading our musings). By and large, those of us who struggle with any of those examples will struggle with all of them. By and large, anyone who supports the policies identified (with the related harms) will support them all. Society seems to be divided down the middle on cultural issues such as these. But there’s a key difference – we sceptics constantly wonder if we’re right, and we wonder at the motivation of people we disagree with – are they really malign, we ask, or are they well-meaning, but mis-guided? Have they simply failed to think things through? Perhaps it’s because they lack practical skills and knowledge. Perhaps they’re sincere, but there beliefs are so deep-rooted that they simply refuse to accept the evidence of the harms caused by the policies they espouse, and so on.

    But when the boot’s on the other foot, they have no such doubts about sceptics. We simply must be evil, deniers, appalling people. How can we be so nasty and so stupid? People who pride themselves on their liberal values don’t give the benefit of the doubt to those who disagree with them, and prefer the illiberal closure of debate and name-calling to a meaningful discussion. It’s sad, distressing, and perplexing in equal measure. I tried to sum up my thoughts in that regard (which haven’t changed in the intervening three years) here:

    https://cliscep.com/2021/09/18/fear-and-loathing-in-kings-place/

    Liked by 3 people

  17. John: As a mere aside, I was amused to hear Kemi Badenoch, on being asked about her intellectual heroes, citing Roger Scruton and Thomas Sowell, mentioning Sowell’s classic Basic Economics in particular. But she mispronounced Sowell. (Eschewing So as in ‘so there’; she said Sow as in a female pig.)

    From this I was’t convinced she had discussed the great scholar’s work very much with other conservatives. That was in her UnHerd interview before the final round of the leadership election.

    As you were.

    Like

  18. I have been doing a bit of lurking over at ATTP. They are currently discussing Pielke Jr and his supposed exaggeration of the significance of there being no detectable trend in the incidence of certain extreme events. However, it didn’t take them long to turn their attention to Judith Curry and her supposed ignorance on the subject of uncertainty. A scathing attack on her by ex climate scientist Michael Tobis has been cited and Ken Rice has made clear his approval. Here is an example of what Tobis had said:

    “I will continue to be an advocate for clarity and precision of thought. I hope others with some interest in uncertainty will stop yielding Dr. Curry a free pass on these matters, where she is an obvious novice.”

    Thus speaks Michael Tobis, a retired climate scientist who has done some statistics in his time and so regards himself an expert on the mathematics of uncertainty. Note how this contrasts with the opinion of Professor Terje Aven, Professor of Risk Analysis and Risk Management, regarding Judith Curry’s grasp of the subject matter:

    “I am impressed by the way Curry has addressed important scientific issues related to climate change, and in particular uncertainty and risk…It is seldom to see climate scientists dealing with risk science issues in such a professional way…”

    I am tempted to post a comment at ATTP pointing out how it is only the true experts on uncertainty who seem to grasp that she is talking sense, and that in siding with Tobis they are backing the wrong horse. However, for obvious reasons, I will not bother.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Very wise, John. As I commented on another thread with regard to the Nonversation, you can only bang your head against a brick wall for a short time before it really starts to hurt.

    Like

  21. dfhunter,

    By all means read that article, but be under no illusions; about 460 of the 480 comments are nothing to do with anything I wrote. I’m afraid that is what you get over at Judith’s.

    Anyway, the purpose of the article was to point out that climate scientists are no experts when it comes to analysing uncertainty. And yet they get a free licence to condemn anyone who points this out — for example, Curry.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Hi John – only made about half way through the comments so far, but good to see you reaching a wider audience 🙂

    Like

  23. John – see what you mean, climate models have taken over the comments (for good or bad).

    But these models/simulations drive the agenda for rapid change to our way of life, in the UK at least, so why have we never seen inside the hallowed hall where these great computers dictate our future?

    Like

  25. Jaime,

    Thanks for reminding me of that somewhat bizarre exchange. Ken Rice thinks that MT is one of “the nicest and most reasonable” climate scientists there ever was. That doesn’t say a lot for the rest of them.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. John,

    Tobis is definitely one of the weirdest, most passive-aggressive characters I’ve come across. I had run-ins with quite a few in the early days, including Mann, and some were pretty shitty, some more polite. Mann, characteristically, was not nice, but at least he didn’t question if I was real to the point of becoming totally obsessed with the idea!

    Like

Leave a comment

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