Climatic Change

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 139–143

When is it appropriate to combine expert judgments?

An editorial essay
  • David W. Keith

DOI: 10.1007/BF00140244

Cite this article as:
Keith, D.W. Climatic Change (1996) 33: 139. doi:10.1007/BF00140244


Rather than seeking improved methodologies, difficulty in combining expert opinion should serve as a warning flag that causes us to seek alternative modes of policy analysis. These alternatives are usually more appropriate for the real audience for our analyses.

Policy analysis of climate change is too often framed in terms that amount to preparing the tools with which a benevolent world dictator could do cost-benefit analysis. This tends to overemphasize end-to-end analysis that must rely on the combined opinions of experts. This framing is unrealistic and encourages omission of important aspects of the climate problem such as its heterogeneity. Rejecting this framing in favor of alternate, less all encompassing, forms of policy analysis permits more robust results, and reduces the emphasis on combining expert opinion.

While the opinions expressed here are my own, I thank Hadi Dowlatabadi, M. Granger Morgan, Ted Parson, and James Risbey for their perceptive comments.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. Keith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations