So, it seems to me that the smart wager would be that global warming is real, really caused by greenhouse gasses, and can and should be prevented or minimized through massive efforts cut greenhouse gas emissions and develop green energy alternatives. The potential gains to be made even if this is wrong and the potential costs if it is right and we do nothing (or not enough) seem clear to me.
I am also puzzled as to why conservatives (self-declared) are so opposed to efforts to stop global warming. After all, to be conservative is, by definition, to be cautious. So, if something is potentially disastrous, but not all the evidence is in, the cautious, conservative thing to do is to stop the potentially bad behavior causing it while investigating further. If I am speeding in a car toward what looks like a cliff or wall, but could be only a mirage, the conservative thing would be to slow down or stop while investigating further–not to step on the gas pedal in a potentially suicidal manner. But the latter is what so-called conservatives are doing regarding global warming. It's just not rational. It's reckless -- as conservatives always claim liberals to be.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Climate Change and Pascal's Wager
Michael Westmoreland-Wright at the Levellers blog has written one of the best opinion pieces that I have seen in regard to global warming. Entitled "Pascal's Wager and the Global Warming Debate," Westmoreland-Wright astutely examines the possible effects of climate change by the logic of Pascal's wager about the existence of God. Here's his conclusion:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is only clear to him because he doesn't understand the nature of Pascal's wager. The whole reason it works is because the time and therefore benefit incurred during the afterlife is nearly infinite. This infinite benefit (or loss) completely justifies the finite changes to lifestyle during your earthly existence.
Compare that to global warming. The benefit or loss caused by global warming are finite, but potentially very large. The costs incurred to forestall them are also very large, but also finite. You cannot make use of any of Pascal's simplifying assumptions here. You have to actually try to quantify the costs, benefits, and probabilities to perform a proper risk analysis.
That and half his analysis is flawed. For instance global warming hasn't been getting worse. We've been on a temperature plateau for a decade now, which means if anything it's gotten "better." We'll see if that holds or not, but it certainly points toward a flaw in most of the temperature models.
Post a Comment