There are no experts on the future.

A wonderfully trenchant observation by Ridley.

There are no experts on the future. https://t.co/Rl17tIpTQB

— Matt Ridley (@mattwridley) November 20, 2022

All the authoritarians who wish to control speech under the guise of stamping out misinformation or disinformation or hate speech routinely get three things almost consistently wrong.

There are no experts on the future, there are only forecasts.

Opinions cannot be fact checked.

Beliefs are not facts.

Forecasting may be done more or less well with better or worse data and more or less rigorous models and greater or lesser confidence in the underlying systems and processes, but they are structured guesses highly contingent on evolving conditions.  This not to say they are not useful; they are useful to the degree that they allow for advanced preparation based on the degree of reliability, accuracy, and precision of the forecast.  

And all models depend upon some minimum number of assumptions.  You might be well informed and you might have deep understanding, but no one is an expert on the future because the future is always contingent on unpredictable variables and events.  

The second thing that journalists and the mainstream media routinely get wrong is the category error of mistaking opinions for facts.  A claimed fact is subject to fact checking.  A stated opinion is not.  

If I make the claim that the US economy was $23 trillion in 2021, that is a factual claim that can be checked.  It can of course be a complicated checking process.  What are the definitions being used?  What is included and excluded in terms of economic activity?  Who is authorized to do the measuring?, etc.  But we can get to an answer upon which everyone can agree (based on the predicate definitions etc.)

But when I state that the US economy will be $24 trillion in 2022, that is not a fact that can be checked.  It is an opinion about the future.  I may have good or bad reasons for that belief.  I may be using higher or lower quality data.  My model may attract more or less consensus among other knowledgeable individuals.  But it is ultimately an opinion. 

Finally, there is something similar with beliefs.  Once again, I may have more or less clear grounds for that belief and I may be able to articulate that belief with greater or less clarity.  But the only thing that can be checked is whether that belief comports well with known data and whether or not I actually hold the belief.

So when a climate activist such as Al Gore makes a forecast that in a century the average global temperature will be, say, two degrees higher and that it will two degrees higher solely due to CO2 emissions, that is a forecast and a belief, not a fact.  Gore might have good reasons for believing that forecasts.  Or not.

And it is fair to look at the consistency of his actions with his stated beliefs.  If he owns multiple large dwellings always maintained at a high comfortable temperature, he flies a lot, and owns most of his property either in already warm climates or next to oceans (which are predicted to rise), then one can question the consistency of his beliefs with his actions.  But it is difficult to refute that he holds the belief.  We are all inconsistent about whole constellations of beliefs.

The mainstream media, many "experts" and much of academia seem to wrestle with these straightforward concepts.  We barely understand the past much less know the future with expert knowledge.  Our opinions might be quirky but they are none-the-less not subject to fact-checking.  Our underlying beliefs might be criticized on many grounds but that does not make the belief less than sincere.  

Were MSM journalists, policy advocates, and academics to simply sort statements into the three categories of forecast, opinions and beliefs, we could rapidly clean up a lot of disputes.  

But the point for most authoritarians is not to arrive at the truth of a thing.  Their objective is usually to win; to take control and assert their own choices onto others.