Modeling mitigation and adaptation policies to predict their effectiveness: The limits of randomized controlled trials
Marcellesi, A.; Cartwright, N.
Policies to combat climate change should be supported by evidence regarding their effectiveness. But what kind of evidence is that? And what tools should one use to gather such evidence? Many argue that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard when it comes to evaluating the effects of policies. As a result, there has been a push for climate change policies to be evaluated using RCTs. We argue that this push is misguided. After explaining why RCTs are thought to be the gold standard, we use examples of mitigation and adaptation policies to show that RCTs provide, at best, one piece of the evidential puzzle one needs to assemble for well-supported decisions regarding climate change policies.
Marcellesi, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Modeling mitigation and adaptation policies to predict their effectiveness: The limits of randomized controlled trials. In E. Lloyd, & E. Winsberg (Eds.), Climate modelling : philosophical and conceptual issues (449-480). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65058-6_15
|Online Publication Date||Feb 14, 2018|
|Publication Date||Feb 14, 2018|
|Deposit Date||Sep 17, 2015|
|Publicly Available Date||Feb 14, 2020|
|Book Title||Climate modelling : philosophical and conceptual issues.|
Accepted Book Chapter
Marcellesi, A. & Cartwright, N. (2018). Modeling mitigation and adaptation policies to predict their effectiveness: The limits of randomized controlled trials. In Climate Modelling: Philosophical and Conceptual Issues. Editors: Lloyd, E. & Winsberg, E. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan. This extract is taken from the author's original manuscript and has not been edited. The definitive, published, version of record is available here: https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9783319650579
You might also like
Objectivity and Intellectual Humility in Scientific Research: They’re Harder Than You Think
A Philosopher Looks at Science
Rigour versus the need for evidential diversity
X—Why Trust Science? Reliability, Particularity and the Tangle of Science