Can This Planet Be Saved?
Ubiquitous
SOMETHING!!!! about global warming:
It's true that scientists don't know exactly how much
world temperatures will rise if we persist with business
as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes
action so urgent. While there's a chance that we'll act
against global warming only to find that the danger was
overstated, there's also a chance that we'll fail to act
only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic.
Which risk would you rather run?
It wasn't so long ago that global warmists were acting as if their alarming
forecasts had already come true, even likening skeptics to Holocaust
deniers. Now they are reduced to saying we really don't know if global
warmism is true or not, but since the consequences are so dire if it is,
we'd better just assume that it is and act accordingly.
If this sounds familiar, perhaps you've heard of Pascal's Wager. Blaise
Pascal, a 17th-century French theologian and mathematician, wanted a reason
to believe in God but believed that God's existence could not be proved by
reason. So he argued instead that faith was a good bet.
If you believe in God and you turn out to be right, Pascal argued, the
payoff is "an infinity of an infinitely happy life." If the probability of
God's existing is anything greater than zero, then, the expected value of
the bet is infinity, and therefore the rational thing to do is bet on God.
Krugman is interested in hell, not heaven. If nonbelievers are wrong about
global warmism, the results will be "catastrophic." Therefore, believing in
global warmism is a good bet regardless of the actual probability that it
is true.
One problem with Pascal's Wager is that assuming an infinite payoff is a
cheat of sorts--one that renders calculations of expected value
nonsensical. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out, it
turns out that flipping a coin and believing in God only if it comes up
heads also yields an infinite expected value.
Krugman's Wager presumably does not presuppose an infinite expected value,
but Krugman cheats in the same way. By raising the specter of
"catastrophic" consequences, he evades the question of just how probable
those results are.
Another problem with Pascal's Wager is that it presupposes only two
possibilities: Either God exists more or less as Christians conceive of
him, or he doesn't exist at all. But from a standpoint of pure logic, this
is completely arbitrary. What if God exists and it is Muslims or Mormons or
atheists who go to heaven?
Krugman's thinking is similarly binary: Either global warming is true and
the stakes are enormous, or it isn't and they are trivial. But how do we
know that global warming won't turn out to be beneficial, or that efforts
to avert it won't have catastrophic consequences?
One difference between Pascal's Wager and Krugman's is that whereas Pascal
was making a case for individuals to embrace faith, Krugman is arguing for
collective action--which is to say, he wishes to use the power of
government to impose his beliefs on others.
By imploring political leaders to make a bet on speculative predictions of
catastrophe, Krugman has made an important concession: that current
scientific knowledge is insufficient to justify the "action" he advocates.
Seems to us it's more prudent to bet against the former Enron adviser.
--
"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem.
Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an
overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a
predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are,
and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
-- Al Gore acknowledges exaggerating the dangers of "global warming"
g kay
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
Haven't you heard?
The Earth will survive long past the Extinction of the humans.
after all what makes you think we won't join the 99% of species that
ever existed , which are now extinct?
A species that destroys it's environment.... well, you do the math.
Hint; Enjoy the moment and don't reproduce. I do and did get a vasectomy.