Climate Change: Risk Management

Comment

Comment by Sean on June 2, 2009 at 11:17pm

Nor do I think this video will convince everyone or fix the world. However, I think this argument has the power to convince more people that drastic action is the right choice.

Pascal's Wager *is* unconvincing to the skeptic if you leave it oversimplified. But there are two main differences between the God scenario and climate change: the chance of existence and the cost of taking action.

In the case of God, there is no real evidence that makes God any more or less likely to exist. It is completely subjective. On the other hand, climate change is a scientific issue, where we have some chance at objectiveness.

With the risk-management argument, fully proven existence becomes unnecessary. Only a small possibility of existence is necessary. This is because the disasters climate change would unleash on the world are so great, and the cons to taking action so small, that even a small chance of this great disaster is worth paying the relatively small cost.

First, to prove at least a small chance of existence. We have 2 of the most reputable organizations in the world, AAAS and NAS, stating that climate change exists and is caused by humans. If you aren't going to listen to these groups, who are you going to listen to (see Credibility Spectrum: 3)? Given the number of credible sources claiming climate change to exist, and the scarcity of credible sources claiming otherwise, skeptics have to acknowedge that there is *at least a small chance* that climate change exists and is human caused. Of course, this is certainly a challenge, getting skeptics to even acknowledge a small possibility. But they should.

Evidence that the disasters would be great: again, statements from NAS and AAAS, among many other groups (1). If you want more solid support for this claim, I can find it.

Cost of action small: try to find any credible source that predicts more than a small reduction in GDP growth as a result of action taken. WonderingMind tried (4). In the God scenario, being righteous requires a lot more effort and it is reasonable for the skeptic to not want to do it.

I would ask any skeptic these questions:
-Are you infallible? Could you be wrong? Are the sources from which you got your information credible?
-Who would be the most trustworthy source to listen to when judging the likelihood of climate change existence (remember, it doesn't have to be 100%)? Which organization or individual would be better to listen to than AAAS and NAS? This isn't to say they are infallible, but if you aren't going to listen to these groups on a scientific issue, who are you going to listen to (1, 2)?
-Can you find a credible organization that claims the harm of taking action is more than a slight reduction in growth?
-If there is *some likelihood* that climate change exists, and the cost of taking action is *minor* in comparison, how can you justify humanity not taking action?

Your move Elle :)


1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg "How It All Ends," 5:09-5:40
2. http://manpollo.org/education/objections/files/So_lets_hear_those_Slam_dunk_st.html
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Ko0U6ncro Credibility Spectrum
4. http://manpollo.org/education/objections/files/You_underplayed_the_negative_co.html

Comment by elle on May 29, 2009 at 3:52am

Although that is a very interesting video, I wouldn't project this over Stephen Harper's desk and hope he gets the idea and fixes the world. I find the biggest flaw is that this is all based on "wagering" and choosing one or the other based on fear as opposed to the individual's own knowledge and opinion.

I don't know if you already know this, but the way wonderingmind42 argues, it's based off the classic Pascal's Wager argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager) from the mid 1600s.

It basically argues whether or not you should believe in God's existance. Here's a cute and simple picture to explain it!


Now to most non-believers, that argument would not stand a chance. It's just so vague and unconvincing to someone who has already established their own opinions based on facts. It would just get shrugged off. And that is why this video may not be as convincing to someone who doesn't already believe in Global Warming.

A good debate would be chock-full of theories, facts and evidence, facts and evidence that contradicts the opposition, etc.

Sorry, Sean. You asked me to find a flaw. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

Thank you for the second link. It looks nifty!