The sky is (not) falling

Y2K and all that. Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen applies basic logic to disaster-mongers (Mr Gardner is big on logic):

She strides confidently across the stage like an accomplished actress or the CEO of one of the major corporations she has on her impressive client list. Her voice is strong, assured, urgent. She has something important to say.

"The problem is global," she declares, striking every syllable with force.

The problem in question is climate change. She has come to the World Disaster Management Conference in Toronto to warn the rapt audience -- hundreds of corporate and government officials -- that the consequences will be so dire that every organization must start planning now. Or face extinction.

I won't identify the woman because this story isn't about her. It's about people like her. Law professor Cass Sunstein, who has written extensively about risk and public policy, has dubbed them "worst-case entrepreneurs."

They call themselves experts. They deliver flawless presentations in boardrooms and conference halls the size of airplane hangars. They wear worried expressions at legislative hearings where politicians stroke their chins thoughtfully and announce to the cameras they are determined to take action. They use PR firms to cultivate the media and are always happy to provide the sort of glib, scary statement that makes great copy.

They are the people who promote, and profit from, fear.

[...]

...climate change and the risk of natural disaster are -- need it be said? -- important topics worthy of discussion. But what distinguishes the legitimate, rational, science-based discussion from the fear-mongering of worst-case entrepreneurs is uncertainty and complexity. In science, there's lots of both. In fear-mongering, there's none. For the worst-case entrepreneur, the evidence is always clear, simple, uniform and pointed toward disaster.

Look again at that litany of scary weather events. Is it proof climate change is already wreaking havoc?

Answer: uncertain. There were floods in the U.K. and wildfires in California long before, and it is literally impossible to say that this or that disaster is the result of rising global temperatures. The most that a scientist would claim is that climate change may increase the probability of such events in some places.

And hurricane activity? There may be widespread agreement among scientists that climate change is real and human activity is primarily responsible, but whether it will lead to more and stronger hurricanes is hotly debated. The prediction about this year's hurricane season is also meaningless since, by definition, some years are going to be above-average. That's what makes it an average.

It's also worth mentioning that predictions aren't gospel: Scientists predicted that the horrific 2005 season -- featuring Hurricane Katrina -- would be followed by another above-average year. In fact, hurricane activity fell far below average.

Naturally our worst-case entrepreneur didn't mention this awkward but useful little fact. Never complicate a simple, scary story: That's the worst-case entrepreneur's motto.

[...]

After the last images of disaster played on the screens and the hall emptied, I tracked down our worst-case entrepreneur and asked if Y2K is really such a fabulous example of disaster management.

Certainly, she answered. Nothing bad happened because "there was a hell of a lot of mitigation." And no one can prove otherwise. "The only way to know it didn't work is if you didn't do anything."

Except some did do nothing. Italy was notorious for failing to tackle the alleged threat. Russia actually spent less on mitigation than British Airways. But they didn't suffer for it. "Countries that did nothing were faced with fewer problems than we expected," admitted Peter de Jager, one of the first experts to raise the Y2K alarm...

There's also some very good analysis as to why increased insurance payments resulting from disasters signify nothing much about the climate.

Mark C.

Posted by markc at July 3, 2008 09:29 PM