00:00:07:06 , 00:00:10:26 , This video is titled "Risk Management" and is part of the expansion pack
00:00:10:26 , 00:00:13:24 , accompanying the original video "How It All Ends":
00:00:13:24 , 00:00:16:29 , The purpose of this video is to further explore the question of
00:00:16:29 , 00:00:20:02 , "How do you go about making a decision when faced with uncertainty?"
00:00:20:02 , 00:00:22:23 , And to expand on the grid about global climate change
00:00:22:23 , 00:00:25:13 , presented in the video "How It All Ends".
00:00:25:13 , 00:00:27:21 , First, a couple warning to the viewer.
00:00:27:21 , 00:00:31:10 , Ronald Reagan said it well in 1985 when he told college students:
00:00:31:10 , 00:00:35:00 , "Your generation is subject to more information than any generation in history.
00:00:35:00 , 00:00:38:05 , Let me suggest one thing, don't let me get away with it.
00:00:38:05 , 00:00:40:29 , Check me out, but check everybody else out too.
00:00:40:29 , 00:00:45:05 , Don't just take it for granted because you read it someplace. Check it out."
00:00:45:05 , 00:00:47:25 , When I first posted the decision grid about climate change in
00:00:47:25 , 00:00:51:16 , "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" in the Spring of 2007
00:00:51:16 , 00:00:53:20 , I got accused of telling people what to believe.
00:00:53:20 , 00:00:55:17 , "I'm not telling you what to believe," I replied.
00:00:55:17 , 00:00:57:19 , "Well you're telling me what to think," some said.
00:00:57:19 , 00:01:00:21 , "I'm not telling you what to think, I'm telling you how to think," I said.
00:01:00:21 , 00:01:03:16 , "Well don't tell me how to think," they said. "Crikey!" I said.
00:01:03:16 , 00:01:06:22 , "What am I allowed to tell you? Why are you watching this? For entertainment?"
00:01:06:22 , 00:01:08:18 , You've got plenty of that elsewhere.
00:01:11:18 , 00:01:13:06 , So here's what I am doing:
00:01:13:06 , 00:01:16:12 , I'm suggesting how to go about making decisions for yourself
00:01:16:12 , 00:01:21:02 , in this very complicated issue that has really high stakes, but some uncertainty.
00:01:21:02 , 00:01:24:22 , But don't just accept what I say because it sounds reasonable and you like my hat.
00:01:24:22 , 00:01:29:13 , Think it through for yourself. Sort it out with others. Check my sources.
00:01:29:13 , 00:01:32:18 , I got accused of being manipulative too, by oversimplifying.
00:01:32:18 , 00:01:34:11 , So here's my official disclaimer.
00:01:34:11 , 00:01:37:13 , Just because it's written down or even published somewhere doesn't make it true.
00:01:37:13 , 00:01:40:16 , Check it out for yourself. But at the same time, be very careful,
00:01:40:16 , 00:01:42:26 , because, just because you disagree with something
00:01:42:26 , 00:01:44:22 , or don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.
00:01:44:22 , 00:01:47:07 , For instance, when I make this claim:
00:01:52:05 , 00:01:54:22 , You may look at it and think "What a dope he is!"
00:01:54:22 , 00:01:56:17 , But it turns out I'm correct,
00:01:56:17 , 00:01:59:29 , as I explained in the video "How It all Ends: Nature of Science".
00:01:59:29 , 00:02:03:29 , If you think it's wrong, it's because you unconsciously brought the wrong assumptions to it.
00:02:03:29 , 00:02:07:12 , So the fault actually was yours, even as you were pointing the finger at me.
00:02:07:12 , 00:02:09:08 , So be very careful of doing exactly that
00:02:09:08 , 00:02:11:20 , as you hear different things in the climate change debate.
00:02:11:20 , 00:02:14:16 , So the question before us is, what do you do when
00:02:14:16 , 00:02:17:01 , One: You can't figure out the right choice,
00:02:17:01 , 00:02:19:16 , but, two: You have to choose.
00:02:19:16 , 00:02:22:17 , The answer is: you do the best you can with what you have.
00:02:22:17 , 00:02:25:19 , As I explained in the video "How It All Ends: Nature of Science",
00:02:25:19 , 00:02:27:27 , we cannot have certainty on climate change,
00:02:27:27 , 00:02:30:21 , so we're just going to have to tolerate some ambiguity.
00:02:30:21 , 00:02:33:21 , It is incredibly unlikely that we will get the answer exactly right,
00:02:33:21 , 00:02:36:10 , and spend the exact right amount of money and resources
00:02:36:10 , 00:02:38:13 , to get the exact effects we want.
00:02:38:13 , 00:02:40:19 , That means no matter how careful we are,
00:02:40:19 , 00:02:43:19 , we are either going to overspend or underspend.
00:02:43:19 , 00:02:45:22 , And let's be big boys and girls about this:
00:02:45:22 , 00:02:48:24 , that means we can either err on the side of overspending,
00:02:48:24 , 00:02:52:25 , in which case we "waste money" but get done what to get done,
00:02:52:25 , 00:02:55:02 , or we can err on the side of underspending,
00:02:55:02 , 00:02:59:00 , in which case we don't waste any money, but less gets done than we wanted.
00:02:59:00 , 00:03:01:07 , Anyone who says that's a false choice and that we can spend
00:03:01:07 , 00:03:04:09 , exactly the right amount of money to get done exactly what needs to get done
00:03:04:09 , 00:03:06:28 , is either lying to you, or just plain dumb.
00:03:06:28 , 00:03:09:13 , Sorry—no need to get mean.
00:03:09:13 , 00:03:13:22 , They're either being disingenuous, or they haven't fully thought things through yet.
00:03:13:22 , 00:03:18:02 , So the formal process of doing the best with what you have is called "Risk Management",
00:03:18:02 , 00:03:21:20 , and it's a great tool that's used all the time by industries and governments.
00:03:21:20 , 00:03:24:16 , What risk management does is it relieves you of the necessity of
00:03:24:16 , 00:03:27:21 , knowing things for certain before making a decision.
00:03:27:21 , 00:03:30:23 , That's the really powerful part: you don't need to know the truth,
00:03:30:23 , 00:03:32:29 , in order to still be confident that you're making the choice
00:03:32:29 , 00:03:35:08 , that will most likely bring you what you want.
00:03:35:08 , 00:03:36:20 , And that's a big relief,
00:03:36:20 , 00:03:39:00 , because it means you and I don't need to sort out all
00:03:39:00 , 00:03:41:26 , the arguments about the technical points of climate science.
00:03:41:26 , 00:03:44:19 , We can leave that to the people who actually know what they're doing.
00:03:44:19 , 00:03:47:09 , Like I said before: during WWII would, would you have insisted
00:03:47:09 , 00:03:51:13 , on personally resolving all common sense contradictions of atomic physics—
00:03:51:13 , 00:03:54:07 , like the idea that matter and energy are the same thing—
00:03:54:07 , 00:03:57:17 , before agreeing that the Manhattan Project was a good use of resources?
00:03:57:17 , 00:03:58:21 , No.
00:03:58:21 , 00:04:01:12 , You and I are not qualified to evaluate the science,
00:04:01:12 , 00:04:03:19 , so we shouldn't get too cocky about trying.
00:04:03:19 , 00:04:06:16 , This is why objections like "100 years of data is not enough
00:04:06:16 , 00:04:10:07 , to know thousands of years of the past climate" always curl my toes.
00:04:10:07 , 00:04:11:23 , Who the heck are you to say that?
00:04:11:23 , 00:04:16:13 , Have you studied the various competing statistical models for integrating proxy data into supersets?
00:04:16:13 , 00:04:20:01 , Can you even tell which parts of that sentence are valid and which parts I just made up?
00:04:20:01 , 00:04:23:25 , Or are you applying that "common sense" that, as we saw in the video "Nature of Science",
00:04:23:25 , 00:04:28:00 , is so woefully ill-equipped for evaluating complex scientific evidence?
00:04:28:00 , 00:04:30:08 , There's a reason it takes a long time and a lot of coffee
00:04:30:08 , 00:04:34:03 , to get the letters "P", "h", and "D" behind your name in the sciences.
00:04:34:03 , 00:04:37:25 , What you and I are qualified to do, is basic risk management.
00:04:37:25 , 00:04:41:11 , Which is good, because that gives us oversight of the whole process.
00:04:41:11 , 00:04:44:24 , That hopefully answers the objection "Well, we can't just surrender control
00:04:44:24 , 00:04:48:17 , of our future to a bunch of egghead who we don't know and never elected."
00:04:48:17 , 00:04:51:26 , They do the science, and then we weight the risks and costs,
00:04:51:26 , 00:04:54:23 , and—as a society—decide what to do.
00:04:54:23 , 00:04:57:26 , So by trusting scientists to do science, we are in no way
00:04:57:26 , 00:05:01:04 , abdicating control of our lives to the scientists or the government.
00:05:01:04 , 00:05:04:29 , We retain that. That is, if you vote.
00:05:04:29 , 00:05:07:14 , Okay, so how do we go about doing this risk management?
00:05:07:14 , 00:05:11:09 , Turns out it's a whole field of study, but we can simplify it a bit for our purposes,
00:05:11:09 , 00:05:14:21 , and take a page from the playbook of casinos and insurance companies.
00:05:14:21 , 00:05:17:04 , Both of those stake their existence on the potentially
00:05:17:04 , 00:05:20:12 , huge costs associated with unpredictable events.
00:05:20:12 , 00:05:23:22 , So how do they manage to stay in business, and in fact, turn a healthy profit?
00:05:23:22 , 00:05:26:19 , Well, it pretty much boils down to something called the "expected value".
00:05:26:19 , 00:05:29:22 , And it's worth taking a look at because it can be really useful for us
00:05:29:22 , 00:05:33:08 , in our grid about deciding what to do about climate change.
00:05:33:08 , 00:05:36:07 , Let's take a simple example and say you're playing a game where you but a ticket,
00:05:36:07 , 00:05:38:22 , and that ticket has some likelihood of paying off.
00:05:38:22 , 00:05:41:00 , We need to distinguish here between two different ideas.
00:05:41:00 , 00:05:43:09 , Two different numbers that are attached to that ticket.
00:05:43:09 , 00:05:46:16 , The first is the probability that the ticket will pay off.
00:05:47:09 , 00:05:52:07 , And that probability is expressed as a number between 0 and 1.
00:05:52:07 , 00:05:55:20 , So for instance 0.5 means there is a 50% chance—
00:05:55:20 , 00:05:58:01 , or a 1–in–2 chance of it paying off.
00:05:58:01 , 00:06:02:23 , The second number that we need to pay attention to, is the consequence.
00:06:05:06 , 00:06:07:20 , The consequence is what happens if the ticket does pay off—
00:06:07:20 , 00:06:09:07 , what you win in this case.
00:06:09:07 , 00:06:14:17 , Every ticket has a probability, and a consequence.
00:06:14:17 , 00:06:19:25 , So let's say the game is such that 1 ticket costs ,
00:06:22:24 , 00:06:28:08 , and let's say a probability of 0.5—or a 1–in–2 chance that you'll win,
00:06:28:08 , 00:06:32:09 , and let's say the consequence—the payoff in this case—is .
00:06:33:23 , 00:06:35:13 , So there are three numbers that describe our ticket:
00:06:35:13 , 00:06:37:29 , the cost, the probability, and the consequence.
00:06:37:29 , 00:06:42:05 , Now, we can't say what will happen with a given ticket, whether it will payoff or not,
00:06:42:05 , 00:06:45:12 , but what we can do is track what happened over a large number of plays.
00:06:45:12 , 00:06:49:22 , To make it easier to understand, let's say the winning happens at even intervals.
00:06:50:22 , 00:06:53:08 , So we've got 12 plays with the cost and consequence.
00:06:53:08 , 00:06:57:28 , The first play costs you and you get get @@@SMARTY:TRIM:PRE@@@, you lose.
00:06:57:28 , 00:07:02:03 , The second play costs you , and your payoff—your consequence—is , you win.
00:07:02:03 , 00:07:05:00 , And then the next time you pay, so every time you pay .
00:07:05:00 , 00:07:06:23 , And every other time you win ,
00:07:06:23 , 00:07:09:25 , so that's in line with what we'd expect with our probability
00:07:09:25 , 00:07:13:07 , of 0.5, or a 1–in–2 change, a 50% chance.
00:07:13:07 , 00:07:22:17 , So, over 12 plays, your total cost is 12 x or ,
00:07:22:17 , 00:07:27:00 , and your total consequence, your total payoff, is you won six times,
00:07:27:00 , 00:07:33:11 , and each time it was , so you won .
00:07:33:11 , 00:07:35:04 , So you broke even.
00:07:35:04 , 00:07:38:09 , The expected value is a way to predict at the beginning
00:07:38:09 , 00:07:40:03 , whether you'll break even or not,
00:07:40:03 , 00:07:44:25 , by looking at what one ticket—on average—is worth.
00:07:44:25 , 00:07:50:10 , For instance taking a look at this, you won over 12 tickets.
00:07:51:14 , 00:07:54:21 , So your winning was over 12 tickets,
00:07:54:21 , 00:07:59:07 , which gives you an average of per ticket.
00:08:00:01 , 00:08:02:09 , Which makes sense, on average.
00:08:02:09 , 00:08:07:00 , Even though no single ticket you exactly , it was either @@@SMARTY:TRIM:PRE@@@ or .
00:08:07:00 , 00:08:10:26 , But that's the average value of the ticket.
00:08:10:26 , 00:08:14:25 , That's also considered the expected value of the ticket, one dollar.
00:08:14:25 , 00:08:18:10 , The thing is you can calculate that way before ever playing the game,
00:08:18:10 , 00:08:20:00 , and you can do it in a very simple way.
00:08:20:00 , 00:08:24:16 , To get the expected value of a ticket, you just multiply
00:08:24:16 , 00:08:28:17 , its probability of winning times its consequence.
00:08:28:17 , 00:08:32:27 , In this case we multiply 0.5, which is our probability of winning,
00:08:32:27 , 00:08:35:27 , times , which is the consequence of winning,
00:08:35:27 , 00:08:39:04 , and we get, Hey presto!, .
00:08:39:04 , 00:08:44:11 , The expected value turned out to be what you got over a large period of time.
00:08:44:11 , 00:08:48:26 , So at the very start of the game, knowing the odds and the payoffs,
00:08:48:26 , 00:08:51:07 , you can calculate the expected value of the ticket,
00:08:51:07 , 00:08:53:27 , compare it to the cost of the ticket,
00:08:53:27 , 00:08:58:12 , and see whether it's worth your money and your time to play the game.
00:08:58:12 , 00:09:01:16 , You can see here at the beginning, since the cost is
00:09:01:16 , 00:09:03:18 , and the expected value of the ticket is ,
00:09:03:18 , 00:09:06:07 , you can expect over the long-haul to break even.
00:09:06:07 , 00:09:08:22 , What if the odds change? Let's say the probability
00:09:08:22 , 00:09:12:29 , of the event—a winning ticket—goes from 1–in–2 to 1–in–4
00:09:12:29 , 00:09:14:18 , and the consequences stay the same.
00:09:14:18 , 00:09:20:22 , So we change this to a 0.25, our consequences stay at ,
00:09:20:22 , 00:09:23:13 , now what is the expected value of a ticket?
00:09:27:02 , 00:09:30:22 , Now the expected value of the ticket is 0.25—the probability—
00:09:30:22 , 00:09:34:26 , times the payoff——which is only 50¢—half a dollar.
00:09:34:26 , 00:09:39:14 , So at the start of that game you can see that your ticket is going to cost you a dollar each
00:09:39:14 , 00:09:44:00 , and is expected to bring you—that's the expected value—
00:09:44:00 , 00:09:46:27 , each ticket is expected to bring you 50¢.
00:09:46:27 , 00:09:49:27 , So at the very start it's a losing proposition,
00:09:49:27 , 00:09:52:01 , over a long period of time you expect to lose money.
00:09:52:01 , 00:09:55:17 , Now does that mean you will lose money? No. You may come out ahead.
00:09:55:17 , 00:09:59:14 , But you expect not to. That's what expected value does for you.
00:09:59:14 , 00:10:02:16 , If you're there for a good time and can spare the case, go for it, have fun.
00:10:02:16 , 00:10:04:02 , But if you're betting with your retirement,
00:10:04:02 , 00:10:06:07 , this game wouldn't be a very wise choice.
00:10:07:00 , 00:10:10:10 , So what the expected value does for you, is at the beginning of an endeavor,
00:10:10:10 , 00:10:12:15 , if you can figure out the probabilities,
00:10:12:15 , 00:10:15:12 , and the consequences of those probabilities,
00:10:15:12 , 00:10:19:06 , at the start you can calculate in a very simple and realistic way
00:10:19:06 , 00:10:23:01 , what do you expect to get from particular course of action.
00:10:23:01 , 00:10:25:09 , In this case buying a ticket or not buying a ticket.
00:10:25:09 , 00:10:27:21 , That's how this becomes useful in climate change.
00:10:27:21 , 00:10:30:28 , We can get a sense of probabilities, we can get a sense of consequences,
00:10:30:28 , 00:10:34:12 , we can use the expected value to get an idea of what we'd expect
00:10:34:12 , 00:10:38:06 , the value to be of choosing column A or column B.
00:10:38:06 , 00:10:39:16 , That's how we'll use it.
00:10:40:14 , 00:10:42:20 , Before we apply this to the climate change grid,
00:10:42:20 , 00:10:44:00 , I want to be clear on something.
00:10:44:00 , 00:10:46:03 , Some critics of my older video kept shouting
00:10:46:03 , 00:10:48:11 , "But that's just a PREDICTION" (all caps),
00:10:48:11 , 00:10:50:19 , as if that means it's pure conjecture.
00:10:50:20 , 00:10:53:26 , Predictions are not statements about something that will happen,
00:10:53:26 , 00:10:56:10 , but that something might happen, and the better the prediction,
00:10:56:10 , 00:10:58:10 , the more robust the work that went into it,
00:10:58:10 , 00:11:01:01 , the more likely it will turn out to be a true prediction.
00:11:01:01 , 00:11:03:07 , For instance, if I'm betting on the roll of a pair of dice
00:11:03:07 , 00:11:06:05 , with all payoffs being equal, I'm going to be on the seven,
00:11:06:05 , 00:11:10:06 , because my study of past dice rolls predicts that a seven is the most likely outcome.
00:11:10:06 , 00:11:13:13 , But betting on a seven doesn't require that I believe it will happen.
00:11:13:13 , 00:11:17:21 , Saying I predict that seven is most likely doesn't mean I believe it will happen.
00:11:17:21 , 00:11:20:22 , It just means that based on my study, it's my best bet,
00:11:20:22 , 00:11:23:17 , it's expected value is the highest of my choices.
00:11:23:17 , 00:11:26:18 , And before you go crying "but the expected value is a flawed mechanism—
00:11:26:18 , 00:11:28:10 , what about the St. Petersburg Paradox?"
00:11:28:10 , 00:11:30:00 , I'll just make the point that if it's good enough
00:11:30:00 , 00:11:32:04 , to turn a profit for casinos and insurance companies,
00:11:32:04 , 00:11:33:25 , it's good enough for our purposes here.
00:11:33:25 , 00:11:37:08 , We don't have to go down the rabbit hole of mathematical theory.
00:11:37:08 , 00:11:39:08 , So to use this device of expected value for our
00:11:39:08 , 00:11:41:06 , grid about action on climate change,
00:11:41:06 , 00:11:43:26 , we need to get some sense of the probability of the two rows,
00:11:43:26 , 00:11:47:11 , and the consequences of the scenarios in each box.
00:11:47:11 , 00:11:49:17 , But with "the Google" here to serve up statements
00:11:49:17 , 00:11:51:23 , supporting pretty much any conclusion we want,
00:11:51:23 , 00:11:53:18 , how do we sift through all the noise to come up with
00:11:53:18 , 00:11:56:17 , a confident assessment of probabilities and consequences?
00:11:56:17 , 00:11:59:20 , The problem is, you can read Michael Crichton's State of Fear,
00:11:59:20 , 00:12:04:24 , and then Fred Pearce's With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change,
00:12:04:24 , 00:12:06:24 , You can look up the "Leipzig Declaration"
00:12:06:24 , 00:12:08:28 , and then the "Scientists' Warning to Humanity".
00:12:08:28 , 00:12:11:01 , But at the end of the day you'll still be left with the question
00:12:11:01 , 00:12:13:15 , "But they all contradict each other, so who's right?"
00:12:14:01 , 00:12:15:20 , I know it sounds like I'm making the point that
00:12:15:20 , 00:12:17:28 , it's futile to do any research, but I'm not.
00:12:17:28 , 00:12:20:02 , I'm trying to make the point that if you want to get anywhere,
00:12:20:02 , 00:12:21:21 , you can't just read stuff.
00:12:21:21 , 00:12:23:20 , You've got to do things differently:
00:12:23:20 , 00:12:26:26 , to examine the source, to look at credentials and possible bias,
00:12:26:26 , 00:12:29:27 , to take a step back and ask not "Who should I believe,"
00:12:29:27 , 00:12:34:17 , but instead "What is the process I will use to decide what to go on?"
00:12:34:17 , 00:12:36:15 , I'd suggest you do it by assigning weight to different
00:12:36:15 , 00:12:38:20 , statements based on the credibility of the source.
00:12:38:20 , 00:12:41:00 , As a science teacher, I've spent a lot of my time thinking about
00:12:41:00 , 00:12:44:22 , of how you evaluate claims and assign credibility to sources.
00:12:44:22 , 00:12:47:07 , That doesn't answer the question "What should I believe,"
00:12:47:07 , 00:12:49:03 , but it does provide and answer to the question:
00:12:49:03 , 00:12:53:11 , "Given the uncertainty, what is probably the most useful statement to move forward with?"
00:12:53:11 , 00:12:58:06 , Which, really, is the fundamental question we're faced with at the heart of most matters.
00:12:58:29 , 00:13:00:24 , As a disclaimer, I'll point out that these are just
00:13:00:24 , 00:13:02:29 , general guidelines—any source could be wrong,
00:13:02:29 , 00:13:04:25 , and as a colleague of mine is fond of saying:
00:13:04:25 , 00:13:07:04 , "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally."
00:13:07:04 , 00:13:10:14 , So this is a tool to just use as a starting point.
00:13:11:20 , 00:13:14:20 , I would place sources on a spectrum running from less reliable,
00:13:14:20 , 00:13:19:09 , or less credible, to more reliable, or more credible, based on two factors.
00:13:19:09 , 00:13:23:15 , One factor is: does the source know what their doing, let's call that "expertise".
00:13:25:06 , 00:13:26:19 , Does the source know what their doing?
00:13:26:19 , 00:13:29:27 , Are they trained? Are they speaking within their expertise?
00:13:29:27 , 00:13:31:14 , Are they conscientious? In other words,
00:13:31:14 , 00:13:34:14 , how likely are they to arrive at a correct conclusion?
00:13:34:14 , 00:13:37:25 , The other factor is: how likely are they to spin that conclusion?
00:13:37:25 , 00:13:39:11 , Let's call that "bias".
00:13:41:05 , 00:13:42:25 , Do they have an agenda of some sort?
00:13:42:25 , 00:13:44:21 , What's the likelihood that they are biased in some way
00:13:44:21 , 00:13:48:08 , that will affect what they choose to tell me, and what they don't?
00:13:48:08 , 00:13:50:21 , Using those two factors, I'd say at the very bottom
00:13:50:21 , 00:13:53:17 , of our spectrum lies the individual lay person.
00:13:55:09 , 00:13:58:23 , Who doesn't necessarily have expertise, and may very well have an agenda.
00:13:58:23 , 00:14:01:08 , That's not to say there's nothing to be learned from individuals, though.
00:14:01:08 , 00:14:04:01 , They can be useful for new ways to see things, or directions to go.
00:14:04:01 , 00:14:06:07 , It's just that you don't want to rely on their information
00:14:06:07 , 00:14:07:24 , any more than is necessary.
00:14:07:24 , 00:14:11:07 , Like Reagan said—check out what they say for yourself.
00:14:11:07 , 00:14:15:17 , I would give more weight to the individual profession
00:14:15:17 , 00:14:18:13 , who is speaking in their area of expertise,
00:14:18:13 , 00:14:20:03 , because they may have an agenda,
00:14:20:03 , 00:14:21:24 , but at least they know what they're doing.
00:14:21:24 , 00:14:25:05 , I might give still more weight to think tanks and advocacy groups—
00:14:25:05 , 00:14:27:25 , like the Cato Institute or Greenpeace.
00:14:29:13 , 00:14:31:07 , They definitely have an agenda,
00:14:31:07 , 00:14:34:14 , but at least their larger than the individual, so they have more
00:14:34:14 , 00:14:37:19 , resources at their disposal, and hopefully their expertise is greater.
00:14:37:19 , 00:14:39:13 , For example, I found an interesting figure about
00:14:39:13 , 00:14:41:17 , atmospheric carbon dioxide that I wanted to use.
00:14:41:17 , 00:14:44:15 , So before throwing it into the video script, I looked at who provided it,
00:14:44:15 , 00:14:46:10 , and I saw that it was someone with a Ph.D.
00:14:46:10 , 00:14:48:10 , after his name, well that's better than nothing,
00:14:48:10 , 00:14:51:21 , from the Environmental Defense Fund. Well, not quite as credible as I'd like—
00:14:51:21 , 00:14:54:16 , their agenda is right there in their name. So what do I do?
00:14:54:16 , 00:14:57:17 , I go look for that figure somewhere else.
00:14:57:17 , 00:15:01:14 , Because I'm looking for the truth, not just support for my beliefs.
00:15:01:14 , 00:15:03:09 , Now this next one, I'm not sure where to put—
00:15:03:09 , 00:15:05:08 , floating around the middle somewhere I guess—
00:15:05:08 , 00:15:09:16 , petitions and other self-selecting things.
00:15:12:06 , 00:15:15:17 , Like the Oregon Petition or the Economists' Statement on Climate Change.
00:15:15:17 , 00:15:17:28 , They may very well know what they're doing—
00:15:17:28 , 00:15:21:22 , you should check to see that the signers have expertise in the area their signing about—
00:15:21:22 , 00:15:24:03 , but the problem is the signers are self-selected—
00:15:24:03 , 00:15:26:03 , so by definition there are no dissenters in there,
00:15:26:03 , 00:15:28:12 , so their spin factor can be fairly high.
00:15:28:12 , 00:15:30:28 , They are really susceptible to the trap of confirmation bias
00:15:30:28 , 00:15:33:04 , that I described in the video "Nature of Science",
00:15:33:04 , 00:15:35:27 , though they can be pretty credible as well. For example,
00:15:35:27 , 00:15:37:26 , the Oregon Petition was a project of a small
00:15:37:26 , 00:15:40:19 , think tank of six employees in rural Oregon,
00:15:40:19 , 00:15:42:18 , while the Economists' Statement on Climate Change
00:15:42:18 , 00:15:44:06 , had six Nobel Laureates sign it,
00:15:44:06 , 00:15:46:08 , so I wouldn't give equal weight to the two,
00:15:46:08 , 00:15:48:27 , even though they both fall into the same category
00:15:48:27 , 00:15:49:29 , somewhere here in the middle.
00:15:49:29 , 00:15:53:09 , Again, it depends a lot on who the signers are.
00:15:53:09 , 00:15:55:27 , Somewhere in here I'd put university research programs,
00:15:55:27 , 00:15:58:12 , though I'm not sure where so I'll just stick it off to the side.
00:16:00:10 , 00:16:02:07 , They're generally more credible than think tanks,
00:16:02:07 , 00:16:05:20 , because they're a couple of funding steps removed from vested interests.
00:16:05:20 , 00:16:09:29 , Now we're getting into the pretty credible stuff: peer-reviewed science articles.
00:16:13:15 , 00:16:16:06 , As I noted in the video "Nature of Science",
00:16:16:06 , 00:16:19:09 , this is getting close to "the best that science can offer",
00:16:19:09 , 00:16:23:05 , because it's gone through a bruising process of critique by experts in the field,
00:16:23:05 , 00:16:28:01 , and it only gets published in the journal in question if it feels it's up to snuff.
00:16:28:01 , 00:16:29:26 , Now some journals are higher quality than others,
00:16:29:26 , 00:16:33:02 , and their publications can be weighted more—there are a ton out there,
00:16:33:02 , 00:16:36:17 , and you can't be expected to recognize them, but I'll throw a few names out
00:16:36:17 , 00:16:40:21 , so that you can recognize them as being the gold standard if you see them.
00:16:40:21 , 00:16:43:14 , For instance, anything from "Science", "Nature",
00:16:43:14 , 00:16:45:22 , "The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences",
00:16:45:22 , 00:16:50:10 , or "Physical Review Letters" is going to be literally the best you can get in science—
00:16:50:10 , 00:16:52:18 , those journals generally don't publish an article unless
00:16:52:18 , 00:16:55:25 , they believe it marks a significant breakthrough in the field.
00:16:55:25 , 00:16:59:09 , So those are essentially the best you can get from science,
00:16:59:09 , 00:17:01:03 , you don't get anything more credible than an article
00:17:01:03 , 00:17:03:11 , that's published in one of those journals.
00:17:04:03 , 00:17:07:12 , I just recently discovered a danger in this rule of thumb
00:17:07:12 , 00:17:09:17 , about trusting peer-reviewed stuff though,
00:17:09:17 , 00:17:12:02 , that you should be aware of if you're going to be analyzing sources.
00:17:12:02 , 00:17:14:13 , Usually when someone gives me a reference to back up what they're saying,
00:17:14:13 , 00:17:17:00 , my first question is "Is it peer reviewed?".
00:17:17:00 , 00:17:20:08 , And generally the stuff that's skeptical of human-caused global climate change
00:17:20:08 , 00:17:22:12 , hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal,
00:17:22:12 , 00:17:24:10 , because it generally doesn't fit the expectations of rigor
00:17:24:10 , 00:17:26:29 , that most peer-reviewed journals maintain.
00:17:26:29 , 00:17:31:00 , But I recently learned there is now a small journal named "Energy & Environment",
00:17:31:00 , 00:17:33:08 , which I've read that most scientists don't take seriously,
00:17:33:08 , 00:17:35:23 , but which does have its own peer review process.
00:17:35:23 , 00:17:38:12 , The upshot is—and the editors admit it—
00:17:38:12 , 00:17:42:12 , it functions as an outlet for climate skeptics to get their stuff published,
00:17:42:12 , 00:17:44:17 , so that the others in the political and popular debate
00:17:44:17 , 00:17:47:18 , can cite "peer-reviewed" scientific studies
00:17:47:18 , 00:17:50:11 , that show global warming isn't such a big deal after all.
00:17:50:11 , 00:17:53:00 , I find that scary. It seems like an abuse of trust,
00:17:53:00 , 00:17:56:04 , because scientists know which journals are more reputable than others,
00:17:56:04 , 00:18:00:10 , so they know how much weight to give the publications they find in different journals,
00:18:00:10 , 00:18:02:20 , but the public doesn't—to us, if it's "peer-reviewed",
00:18:02:20 , 00:18:04:25 , it's all the same, it must be solid stuff.
00:18:04:25 , 00:18:08:18 , That used to be true. Thankfully, it still is for the most part.
00:18:08:18 , 00:18:11:10 , Now here we get to the two types of sources that I think carry the most weight,
00:18:11:10 , 00:18:13:21 , and I don't think I'd rank one above the other.
00:18:13:21 , 00:18:15:20 , Here you'd put statements from an organization
00:18:15:20 , 00:18:18:14 , that contradicts its normal bias.
00:18:20:01 , 00:18:22:03 , For instance, if the local timber lobby says
00:18:22:03 , 00:18:24:01 , "We've got to thin out this forest for its own health"
00:18:24:01 , 00:18:25:15 , you wouldn't be that convinced,
00:18:25:15 , 00:18:28:05 , but if the Sierra Club made the same statement,
00:18:28:05 , 00:18:30:13 , that "we've got to cut down that forest to save it",
00:18:30:13 , 00:18:31:26 , then you'd sit up and take notice.
00:18:31:26 , 00:18:34:03 , The reasons must be really compelling if the Sierra Club
00:18:34:03 , 00:18:36:18 , is going to contradict their normal message.
00:18:37:01 , 00:18:40:16 , Finally, up here are the professional organizations.
00:18:41:17 , 00:18:44:19 , That is, organizations that exist not to advance a particular agenda,
00:18:44:19 , 00:18:48:14 , but to simply serve the communication and training needs of a particular profession.
00:18:48:14 , 00:18:50:06 , like the American Medical Association,
00:18:50:06 , 00:18:53:20 , the American Institute of Architects, etc., there's a gajillion out there.
00:18:53:20 , 00:18:58:02 , Not only are they made of up of people who know what they're doing in terms of expertise,
00:18:58:02 , 00:19:00:17 , but for the association to actually come out with a statement
00:19:00:17 , 00:19:04:04 , generally requires that most of the members agree with it.
00:19:04:04 , 00:19:06:18 , so there's going to be a bruising and very thorough process
00:19:06:18 , 00:19:08:22 , to make sure it's not some whim or a flimsy statement
00:19:08:22 , 00:19:10:29 , that may later embarrass the organization
00:19:10:29 , 00:19:14:27 , So the bias really tends to be taken out of those statements.
00:19:14:27 , 00:19:18:04 , Now, it's important to note that I just totally made this stuff up,
00:19:18:04 , 00:19:20:14 , I just pulled this out of my hat.
00:19:20:14 , 00:19:24:29 , This is what I do when I'm deciding how much weight to put in statements I've read,
00:19:24:29 , 00:19:28:29 , and I'm sharing it here to suggest as a tool to use in our discussions.
00:19:28:29 , 00:19:31:04 , If you have a better tool for how to evaluate sources
00:19:31:04 , 00:19:34:07 , or some insight that refines this, please share it with me.
00:19:34:07 , 00:19:36:28 , And, while I'm confident of the two ends,
00:19:36:28 , 00:19:40:30 , I'd put individual lay-person at the bottom, individual professional just above,
00:19:40:30 , 00:19:42:20 , and I'd put professional organizations and
00:19:42:20 , 00:19:45:10 , statements that contradict the normal bias at the top,
00:19:45:10 , 00:19:48:16 , in the middle here it's much more murky to me.
00:19:48:16 , 00:19:51:01 , For instance, I don't know if I'd put petitions
00:19:51:01 , 00:19:53:18 , above or below think tanks, I'd put some petitions above other ones,
00:19:53:18 , 00:19:55:15 , some think tanks above other ones.
00:19:55:15 , 00:19:59:12 , It also gets mixed up here, you might find a book published by a think tank,
00:19:59:12 , 00:20:01:20 , but it was written by a professional individual,
00:20:01:20 , 00:20:04:14 , so you wouldn't necessarily weight it more than any other book.
00:20:04:14 , 00:20:06:06 , You really do have to think about what biases
00:20:06:06 , 00:20:08:00 , might be present in any given example.
00:20:08:00 , 00:20:10:03 , Remember: this is just a starting point.
00:20:10:26 , 00:20:16:15 , Now, armed with our credibility spectrum, we can explore our grid more.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.