Here's an interesting video where a guy applied Pascal's wager [wiki] on global warming. YouTube user johnq5, a science teacher, asked this question: what is the consequence if global warming is false and we spend tons of money trying to prevent a problem that doesn't exist. And what is the consequence if the reverse is true: global warming is real, but we didn't do anything about it.
It's an eloquent argument, but see if you can find the flaw in the logic (no, I'm not arguing that global warming is real or not, just the danger of applying Pascal's wager to a complex situation).
What do you think? Is action preferable than inaction when the cost of inaction is so high, like in the case of global warming? A slam dunk argument? Ask yourself this: how about instead of global warming, it's Soviet nukes or Saddam's WMD.
Hit play or go to Link [YouTube] | Here's another, where he answered criticism and objections of his first video clip: Link [YouTube] - Thanks No One!
Did you know you can trace all this global warming rubbish to within days of the fall of the Berlin Wall?
by the way, climate change hypotheses date back to *at least* the 1970s.
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!
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????
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.
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.
Here's a Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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:"
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Wager on that !
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.
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 ...
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?
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.
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.
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.