Pascal’s Wager on Global Warming

• Hollywood
  November 19th, 2007 at 6:33 am

  And when the governments and activists finally get their way, and we’re all living in a solar/wind driven world where we can only turn on the lights if we unplug the refrigerator, and the temperature keeps rising, what then? Are they gonna send rockets into space to block the sun?

  Did you know you can trace all this global warming rubbish to within days of the fall of the Berlin Wall?

• reid
  November 19th, 2007 at 6:57 am

  you’re right hollywood, we’re all just doing this to keep you down.
  by the way, climate change hypotheses date back to *at least* the 1970s.

• Chris
  November 19th, 2007 at 7:10 am

  Stop using your computer, it’s warming up the climate!

  This guy is not a gambler. What about the thrill of the rolling dices?!!! Will I win, or loose everything?! Column A is a sissy option!

• Jerry
  November 19th, 2007 at 7:35 am

  Then again there’s column “C”….

  If man was truly able to change the climate then we should be able to modify it to suit our tastes and correct any problems. The little problem with that is that we cant even figure out how to make it rain or change the course of a Katrina or even forecast the weather more than a few days ahead, let alone actually DO something.

  ….where’s your weather control stations kiddies????

• senderista
  November 19th, 2007 at 7:38 am

  I find it hard to believe that anyone takes this argument seriously. Let me try to make the fallacy here a bit more explicit with an example. Suppose someone tells you that by pushing a button, you can cure cancer with certainty, but there is a chance of 1 in 10^80 (roughly the number of atoms in the visible universe) that pushing the button will destroy all life on Earth. Should you push the button? I think almost anyone would agree that you should, even though the expected benefit is finite (curing everyone of cancer), and the expected cost is infinite (an infinite cost divided by 10^80 is still infinite). You could apply the same logic to asteroid impacts. Should we drop everything we’re doing and devote all our economic resources to avoiding a future asteroid collision, no matter how improbable it may be? After all, the outcome is at least as bad as catastrophic global warming (*infinitely bad*, from a human perspective at least). I could come up with any number of such hypothetical scenarios, *each* of which demands that we focus all our attention on preventing it to the exclusion of all else. The fact that it’s impossible to address all such hypothetical scenarios *even if* we accepted that we had a moral duty to do so should alert us that something’s wrong here. And what’s wrong is the neglect of opportunity costs. Trying to field a fleet of space-based nuclear weapons to destroy incoming asteroids means we have fewer resources to deal with global climate change. More seriously, trying to mitigate global climate change means we have fewer resources to address problems whose reality is not in doubt, like poverty and disease. The moral is 1) not every threat with an infinitely bad outcome needs to be taken seriously, provided it is sufficiently unlikely, 2) given that resources are finite, allocating more resources to one problem generally means allocating fewer resources to others, 3) for any serious public policy issue like global climate change, there can be no substitute for rigorous cost-benefit analysis, certainly not cheap, fallacious arguments like this one. Note that I am not taking either side on the global warming debate; I am simply saying that this video detracts from rather than contributes to that debate.

• Carrington Vanston
  November 19th, 2007 at 7:44 am

  He says nobody’s been able to poke a hole in his logic, but I find that surprising.

  The primary logical fallacy he falls prey to is called “the fallacy of the excluded middle.” Pascal’s Wager almost always introduces this fallacy when used to argue a side in a complex matter.

  (That’s why Pascal’s Wager can be used to argue in favor of using all of Earth’s resources up in creating a space defense shield that will prevent attacks by the Brain-Sucking, Zombie-Making, Universe-Destroying Slugs of Alpha Centuri.)

  His arguments have the same fallacies–and he draws essentially the same conclusion, ie. believers should proselytize–as proponents of religion, Intelligent Design, etc. (Watch the video and substitute “God exists” and “God doesn’t exist” for the rows.)

  For the record, I believe global warming is a real threat and is caused by our actions (and thus is perhaps preventable by our actions). So I *do* share his conclusion. But I still think his argument is not logically valid.

• Josh
  November 19th, 2007 at 9:09 am

  He forgot global cooling as a result of false, yes. The UK already pumps CO2 from the atmosphere and when other countries come on board and this whole things comes to be false we will be entering a ice age much bigger then the 1600s. So the results would be very much similar to True, No if not worse.

  The sun is at is high for producing its heat right now due to a increased number of sun spots. This shows on Earth as well as Mars. If the sun is the cause of the warming (which I believe it is) then pumping so much CO2 from the atmosphere will be the cause of the next ice age and probably not a small one at that. Returning CO2 to the atmosphere is a far more complicated task than taking it.

  So both columns have a very bad outcome if you choose wrong. You just better be right in your choice.

• andrew
  November 19th, 2007 at 9:26 am

  I’ve sen a lot of sides posting this video, and if you look in the comments of the original one he says “don’t watch this there’s too many logical fallacies” he instead points you to one he made a while later, called “how it all ends” It’s a much better version of this same argument and avoids the Pascal’s Wager bit.

  Here’s a Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

• Anita
  November 19th, 2007 at 10:12 am

  The problem with global warming activists is that they are looking at the wrong problem. Pascal’s wager would be much more appropriate (and less controversial) if applied against the costs/benefits of national energy dependence/independence.

  If each country can become energy independent, the climactic impact should be the same as the expected results from combating global warming … the only difference is that the cost/benefit equation becomes much more palatable and concrete.

• williams
  November 19th, 2007 at 10:22 am

  The presumption is that global warming, if it happens, will be a disaster. Why? We will be able to grow wine and olive trees in our yards, and save on heating bills.
  No, repetition and propaganda are not the truth.
  Soil erosion from logging, salination of soil from excess agriculture, they are mans fault. Just blaming Global warming is a cop-out and excuse for woolly thinking. Oh, and new jobs for redundant politicians.

• sparge
  November 19th, 2007 at 10:42 am

  Yeah, the fallacy here is neglecting to account for the probabilities of these outcomes happening. Risk = odds of outcome*cost of outcome.

  So let’s assign an arbitrary large cost to the end of the world as we know it scenario, say 1 sextillion dollars. And lets say that the worldwide cost of heading off that scenario is 1 quadrillion dollars. We need to evaluate whether the cost of action is greater than the risk of inaction.

  So let’s assume in this scenario that it’s a wash. That means that the odds of the disaster are 1 quadrillion/1 sextillion, which equals 1 in a million. Now we drop the assumption and look at the actual odds — if they are smaller than 1 in a million, then prevention is wasted money, but if they are greater then it is money well spent.

  (Please don’t quote the numbers here. They are for illustrative purposes only.)

  You can do the analysis for multiple levels of consequence and come up with a composite risk that takes into account the probabilities of each level of disaster times their estimated cost. However, the problem comes back to estimating the odds of catastrophe occurring — they will be very different depending on who you ask.

• Jason E.
  November 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am

  Can’t this argument be summed up more eloquently?

  Outcomes will be positive or negative.

  If + = good
  Then - = bad

  Each consequence has a value.
  The values added together for each column will yield a positive, negative or zero value.

  Add the values for each column, and the column with the highest value is the action that’s most desirable.

  The flaw (if you want to call it that) is that most subscribers to column ‘A’ want to supplement column ‘B’ with extra negative consequences and the subscribers to column ‘B’ want to do the same to column ‘A’

  The only way to keep this scientific would be to have an objective group assign the values to each column. Since there are no people that don’t live on Earth (that we know of) we cannot achieve the assembly of such a group.

  Therefore (deep breath), the entire argument is moot, and we should do nothing b/c that’s the column that includes the single “zero” consequence which is:

  Do nothing, and nothing happens good or bad.

• Jason E.
  November 19th, 2007 at 11:47 am

  I want to amend my previous post:

  “Therefore (deep breath), the entire argument is moot, and we should do nothing b/c that’s the column that includes the single “zero” consequence which is:”

  should read:

  “Therefore (deep breath), the entire argument is moot, and we should do nothing b/c that’s the column that includes the one consequence that most will undoubtedly deem worthy of the highest positive value which is:”

• Steohawk
  November 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm

  In a few decades, we’ll all run out of oil. That’ll put an end to most of our carbon emissions. If global warming is a man-made disaster, then it’ll be over pretty soon. We need to spend more time and money researching cheap (maybe even free) renewable energy.

• Dan
  November 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pm

  #10…Wine Trees?

• Kirkburn
  November 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

  Amazing, from looking at these comments, it’s like Crazyland came out to play.

  Some of you are so, so encolosed in your own world, that you do not realise it’s GLOBAL warming, not USA warming.

  Yes, you might get “better” weather, but what all those other people whose lives are destroyed by this change? Do you have no care for them? Sea levels WILL rise if the world temperature increases, and that means homes and lives WILL be destroyed.

  As for people disputing the reality - whether or not humans are the main contributer, simple logic tells you we ARE contributing. Greenhouse gases aren’t called such for no reason. Following on from my previous paragraph, is it therefore not obvious that we should do something to reduce our impact?

• Dogrun81
  November 19th, 2007 at 7:26 pm

  Global warming will not be a problem if you believe the founder of The Weather Channel.

  http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11621966.html

  Who benefits from a warming scam? Well, General Electric does for one. They have invested heavily into alternative energy, carbon offsets, and so on.
  Also, research scientists tend to get more grant money when their findings are more exciting (i.e. impending doom) than when they are boring (i.e. everything’s ok).
  So for all of you who blame Big Oil for all skeptic scientists, consider that there is huge money on both sides.

• Kirkburn
  November 19th, 2007 at 7:36 pm

  Naturally these inviduals who believe it is a “scam” are much more intelligent than nearly the entire scientific community :/ Calling it a “scam” for one is a completely absurd idea, similar to calling the moon landings a “hoax”. You can’t fool tens of thousands of people that easily.

  “consider that there is huge money on both sides” … eh? Are you saying that pretty much every scientist involved in these studies, whether they produce pro- or anti- GW findings, are being bribed?

  Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming someday.

• Jason E.
  November 19th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

  I think… somehow… the idea of this post has been lost in the ever-present desire to “be the guy who knows the secret behind the real issue”

  How about posting your opinion of the actual content contained within the video posted?

  To clarify:

  How effective does Pascal’s Wagner appear to be applicable to the arguments surrounding the global warming issue? Then provide some supporting facts for that argument so that we may all enjoy.

• James Schend
  November 19th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

  Kirkburn: The big problem with the global warming crowd is the problem that Williams and Dogrun81 states: What if global warming isn’t a bad thing? What if it increases farmable land, and thus increases food production, and thus decreases starvation worldwide?

  Ignore any debate whether global warming is real. Ignore any debate whether global warming is caused by man or nature. Focus instead on this question: Given that global warming is real, what should we do about it? And yes, maybe “nothing” is a valid answer, and perhaps, just perhaps, it’s the best answer.

  Don’t go with propaganda like this YouTube video, think about it and come to your own conclusions.

  The other thing that bugs me about most global warming supporters is that they completely ignore the possibility of humans to adapt to changing weather. Humans are pretty damned good at adapting to things… we lived on the Arctic Circle and we lived on the Equator long, long before burning coal or driving Mazdas around. Why do global warming activists *assume* that we’re too stupid to adapt to this change?

• booyah
  November 19th, 2007 at 10:52 pm

  Kirburn: “You can’t fool tens of thousands of people that easily.”

  Uh, are you out of your god-d-mn mind? Ever heard of Nazi Germany? the Soviet Union? China? Millions of people can be fooled into believing an evil ideology. Especially when there’s money to gain (as in the billions and billions being proposed to “Combat Global warming”) objectivity goes out the window. Anthropogenic climate change is as laughable as Y2K was.

• BillyJ
  November 20th, 2007 at 12:40 am

  Did someone just link WIKIPEDIA (Kirk..)?!?!? Ha, ha!

  To give a link, on any blog, that you could have contributed to is… well, I’ll leave that alone for now…

  As to the argument, the earlier posts hold true. It is impossible to use Pascal for this. To add on to them, if it is TRUE, and we didn’t cause it, or can’t stop it either way (to appease you far-right-wing global warming people).., Anyway, if it is true, and we can’t stop it, spending the money means that we get BOTH bad squares… One now, and one later.

  Since you will all realize one day that 98% of greenhouse gas is water vapor (yep!), and we will then fight the clouds, and the warming is the sun (so kill the sun??) I leave you for the night.

• donna
  November 20th, 2007 at 2:53 am

  Man, this place is full of idiots today.

• The Lucifer Principle
  November 20th, 2007 at 2:59 am

  What if in reality we’re all heading to an ice age, and efforts to “stop global warming” are actually hastening the ice age.

  Wager on that !

• Andy
  November 20th, 2007 at 3:42 am

  Beautifully done.

• Nonimus
  November 20th, 2007 at 4:16 am

  The embedded video shown was from several months ago.

  From the second YouTube link above, you can see an updated version. On that page, you can click on the “more” link in the right column for About This Video, and there is a full listing of videos he has put together. He addresses every criticism and discusses the issue in more detail.

• Kirkburn
  November 20th, 2007 at 8:30 am

  I’m still amazed at the replies to my comments.

  First, the fact it would destroy massive, MASSIVE amount of farmland by sea level rise is completely ignored, then all warnings of global warming are called “propaganda”, and then someone compares it to Nazi Germany … truly shocking.

  Yes, I linked to wikipedia. What would you prefer me link to? A website funded by pro- or anti-global warming zealots? Perhaps I could link to several of the scientific institutions who endorse it. But no, that wouldn’t be unbiased enough for you. So I link wikipedia, which has linked SOURCES which anyone can follow and validate for themselves.

  Finally, regarding “fooling” people. Comparing this to ideologies is absurd - all humans have the capacity to do “evil”, and will do so if forced or coerced. Scientific research, however, has nothing (though I’m sure some conspiracy subscribers disagree) to do with force or coercion, just the natural human capacity to be curious.

  I wish I knew how I could gain from saying global warming was happening, and thus get all this magical cash that appears upon announcing such …

• iju
  November 20th, 2007 at 12:48 pm

  How often have we seen government regulation exacerbate the problem it is trying to solve? I see all the usual suspects setting up the sheep for a good fleecing.

• blo
  November 20th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

  Kirkburn: Again, uh, no. I did not compare global warming to Nazi Germany. I used Nazi ideology as an example of the way “thousands of people can be fooled easily”, something you seem so eager to believe is impossible. It’s certainly not absurd to demonstrate that thousands of people can be coerced and fooled into believing something in the name of science (see state-sponsored racism due to the psuedoscience of eugenics, something widely accepted in its day, as is the current fallacious “consensus” of anthropogenic - man made - climate change.) And if you want the money, work for GE, or the UN, or any other organization standing to gain untold amounts of money for this bs.

• RF
  November 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

  Yes, we’ll all grow wine and olives.

  It’s really very simple - if the US and Canadian governments are hiding data, refuting data, dithering over data, and generally stalling and denying the entire issue, then chances are climate change is real and ugly.

  Sorry, but I’m not going to go with the suits on this one. Who in their right mind still believes that government has our best interests in mind, that their judgment on anything is ever well-informed and productive?

  Where do people get this bizarre faith in our overlords?

• Nonimus
  November 20th, 2007 at 2:45 pm

  It’s interesting to see how people are dismissive of climate change concerns. There is this blanket thinking that somehow this is an issue of politics, profiteering and new world order domination. For everyone else, it is an issue of science and risk management.

• David S.
  November 20th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

  The guy in the video assumes that one of the costs of inaction is political upheaval and possibly wars. But that’s also a cost of alarmism.

  The Third World is being told to hate the evil developed countries–especially the U.S.–over something that has not happened, may never happen, and if it does happen, may not be anyone’s fault.

• Nonimus
  November 20th, 2007 at 7:16 pm

  Even the Pentagon is planning for possible social and geopolitical upheaval from climate change scenarios. And we know what a liberal operation they are.

  Given the best scientific evidence at hand, sounding the alarm is a precautionary measure. A future based on more efficient vehicles, bulbs and appliances — with sustainable energy sources, new economies and industries — what’s the big fuss? Environmental stewardship is good for our health, our quality of life, our business, our national security, our social stability … and so on.

  Remember what happened during Hurricane Katrina? All the people who were displaced, the lack of basic resources, the violence, death and subsequent police apparatus that was imposed. All that was within the best equipped, most organized democracy on the planet.

  Well, if the worst case climate change scenarios come to pass, Katrina will look small in comparison. With a wink and nod, she’ll say, “I told ya so.”

  Please forgive us while we plan for the worst and hope for the best.

• David S.
  November 20th, 2007 at 7:45 pm

  Katrina was only a category 3 hurricane and it had nothing to do with global warming. Its severe results tell us more about political corruption and incompetence than they do about the climate.

  Global warming will likely decrease the strength and number of hurricanes. Hurricanes are not caused by high temperatures; they’re caused by differences in temperatures. And the consensus is that most warming will occur in the polar regions–that means global temperatures will become more uniform.

• Nonimus
  November 20th, 2007 at 10:53 pm

  I never said global warming caused hurricanes. I was talking about the effects of a natural disaster for which we were not sufficiently prepared — that is, our vulnerability was known, and the consequences were anticipated, but we ignored the danger and dismissed preventive action. Also, you add to the weight of the general argument in that, as you said, Katrina was “only” so big. Now imagine environmental hardship on a larger scale, and you may get the point.

Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!