Lee breaks new ground (as far as I know, anyways) regarding the ethics of decision
making under deep uncertainty
Judith, you appear to raise your eyebrows at Lee's «propagating disinformation», and then write of your preference for the rubric «Decision -
making under deep uncertainty».
Lee breaks new ground (as far as I know, anyways) regarding the ethics of decision
making under deep uncertainty, with some profound conclusions regarding mitigation versus adaptation: «I assume here that the greater the speculation and uncertainties involved, the weaker the ethical claim.
Lee breaks new ground (as far as I know, anyways) regarding the ethics of decision
making under deep uncertainty, with some profound conclusions regarding mitigation versus adaptation:
Hence a decision analytic framework of «decision
making under deep uncertainty» is a much better match to the climate problem, where understanding uncertainty and areas of ignorance is critical information for the decision making process.
Decision
making under deep uncertainty, and the attendant strategies for robust decision making, are making headway.
What you are advocating is excellent and a necessary re-orientation for the science policy interface, IMO, to «decision
making under deep uncertainty, robust decision making and scenario thinking».
A way forward is the decision analytic framework of robust decision
making under deep uncertainty, which emphasizes scenario discovery and uncertainty analysis and identifying a broad range of robust decision strategies.
Three plausible, relevant and challenging regional scenarios are presented, which provide a clear and enabling framework for decision
making under deep uncertainty and a platform to guide the development and consideration of more and better -LSB-...]
The World Bank has a new white paper entitled: Investment decision
making under deep uncertainty — application to climate change.
If this is true, the strong precautionary principle is a hard sell as the preferred option for decision
making under deep uncertainty.
The issue of decision
making under deep uncertainty was discussed in this post on Can we make good decisions under ignorance?
Most of Koonin's points are very similar to what I have been saying, I would say the main difference is related to decision
making under deep uncertainty.
See the World Bank paper on «Investment Decision
Making under Deep Uncertainty — Application to Climate Change.»
Their discussions have been driven largely by the release of a World Bank working paper, «Investment decision
making under deep uncertainty — application to climate change.»
Not exact matches
Assuming that climate change and other
deep uncertainties can not be eliminated over the short term (and probably even over the longer term), it then summarizes existing decision -
making methodologies that are able to deal with climate - related
uncertainty, namely cost - benefit analysis
under uncertainty, cost - benefit analysis with real options, robust decision
making, and climate informed decision analysis.
Attempting to use climate information in the context of expected utility can lead to bad decisions; there are much better ways to approach the decision
making under conditions of
deep uncertainty.
Looking at other decision
making frameworks that are more suitable
under conditions of
deep uncertainty motivates a different type of analysis and emphasizes assessment of
uncertainty and areas of ignorance.
When using climate information to support decision
making on decadal to century timescales, we are in a situation of «
deep uncertainty;» see the previous post on Can we
make good decisions
under ignorance?
Judith keeps talking about decision
making under «
deep uncertainty».
To this cynic, decision
making under «
deep uncertainty» sounds like politics as usual.
That potentially pushes us
deeper into the realm of decision -
making under major
uncertainty.
So the situation is decision
making under deep irreducible
uncertainty