Suppose you were to calculate expected value (e.g. expected change in final utility) based on your probability estimates. How certain would you be in that number? If not 100%, adjust the number accordingly to take that % into account. Now, how certain are you in that number? Rinse and repeat.
People are not terribly good at transmitting and receiving, across adversary relation, what exactly they are 100% sure about. But it is clear that one has to end up with some value, that one has to trust completely; one could e.g. side with consensus, and trust that completely, or one can try to weight different people’s opinions using made up numbers, but in the end, you will have a number that you’ll trust, and if you don’t, you’ll have to propagate uncertainty and have another number for the ‘expected value’ that you trust; if you want to do it forever you can solve that using algebra and again have a number you’ll be acting on as if it was true. That is just how probabilistic reasoning works.
Naturally, the original AGW estimates, by scientists, are just that: expected value. I find it very dubious that you can improve consensus on expected value (and standard deviation) by factoring in the contesting views yourself, with your own personal probability estimates.
Suppose you were to calculate expected value (e.g. expected change in final utility) based on your probability estimates. How certain would you be in that number? If not 100%, adjust the number accordingly to take that % into account. Now, how certain are you in that number? Rinse and repeat.
People are not terribly good at transmitting and receiving, across adversary relation, what exactly they are 100% sure about. But it is clear that one has to end up with some value, that one has to trust completely; one could e.g. side with consensus, and trust that completely, or one can try to weight different people’s opinions using made up numbers, but in the end, you will have a number that you’ll trust, and if you don’t, you’ll have to propagate uncertainty and have another number for the ‘expected value’ that you trust; if you want to do it forever you can solve that using algebra and again have a number you’ll be acting on as if it was true. That is just how probabilistic reasoning works.
Naturally, the original AGW estimates, by scientists, are just that: expected value. I find it very dubious that you can improve consensus on expected value (and standard deviation) by factoring in the contesting views yourself, with your own personal probability estimates.