May 14th, 2008
by Michael Swanberg
Can Pascal’s Wager be applied to the Global Climate Change debate?
| ||||||||||
There’s a guy, apparently a science teacher, who has a series of videos out on the web where he tries to simplify the debate about Global Warming to a very rudimentary decision. Essentially, he purports, if we do nothing, then the possibility of global catastrophe exists. However, if we start immediate and widespread change against CO2 emissions, then the worst thing that could happen (complete economic ruin) isn’t that bad.
Search YouTube for “manpollo” and you’ll see a list of this guy’s (I have no idea what his name is) videos on the subject. He’s bright, but I think he’s missed the boat on some things.
Essentially, he sets up a Pascal’s Wager with the idea. Pascal’s Wager, if you aren’t aware, is basically the idea that there are 2 sets of 2 possibilities, creating a 4-square grid. The 2 columns are “God exists” and “God doesn’t exist”. The 2 rows are “Believe in God” and “Don’t believe in God”. Since we cannot determine, nor affect, whether or not God exists, Pascal postulates that our choice must be on whether to believe in God or not. Then he goes into the likely scenarios. Essentially, if we don’t believe in God and he exists, well then we end up in eternal damnation. But if God doesn’t exist, well then death is simply the end of it all for us. On the other hand, if we do believe in God, and God exists, well then we end up in Heaven. However, if God doesn’t exist, well we’ve led a pious life and end up dead once we die.
So, since the worst-case scenario (damnation) is on the “do not believe” row, and the best-case scenario (go to Heaven) is on the “believe” row, Pascal suggest we should believe in God to maximize our odds. Something tells me God can see through that ruse, but nonetheless…
Believe and say what you will about Pascal’s Wager, but the similar wager that this science teacher puts forth in his videos is, to me, downright irresponsible. And also, quite a bit uninformed.
Here’s how he lays it out. In other videos he makes it far more complex… watch if you have the stomach and the time. But the basis is this. Row 1 is “Global Climate Change is true” and Row 2 is “Global Climate Change is false.” Column A is “effect change to combat global warming” and Column B is “do nothing in regards to global warming.”
First, it seems to me that he completely ignores the idea that global warming might not be man-made. He never really says what his definitions are for the rows. But it seems to me he’s toed the party line, which is that the current warming trend we’re experiencing is due totally to man-made CO2 emissions. As far as I know, very few people deny that the earth is currently on a warming trend, just as the planet was on a cooling trend between the 40s and 70s. The real question isn’t “does global warming exist?” but rather “are humans causing this global warming?”
Okay, so back to these videos. The science teacher then begins to look at worst-case scenarios, just as Pascal did. For Column A, he has essentially two possibilities. First, if global climate change (which I will use as the idea that global warming is human-caused) is false, and we make changes to policy and our way of life (Column A), then we face possible economic ruin. Many on the “there is no (man-made) global climate change” side of the argument believe that such things as the Kyoto Accord are a path to sure economic ruin. We will all see the cost of everything rise so high, because we are all made to use the far-more-expensive wind- and solar-powered means of carrying on life, that we will all suffer a deep depression far worse than the 1930s. In the lower-left quadrant, the science teacher has a happy face, or a neutral face (depending on which video you’re watching) which says that GCC (global climate change) is true and we made changes and everything is hunky-dorey. Some of you are already seeing the problems here.
Then the teacher goes to Column B. In the upper-right quadrant, he has the possibility that GCC is false and we do nothing about it. Well, that’s a big smiley face because we didn’t spend a lot of money and the climate let us all live. However, in the lower-right quadrant, which is GCC is true and we do nothing, he has essentially the end of all life as we know it.
In the end, the science teacher says, basically, hey, we may as well do all we can to combat global warming because if we don’t, only then is there the possibility of complete death and destruction.
Okay, here are the problems I see with his way of thinking. First of all, he says he’s looking for worst-case scenarios. Well, we can all dream up any manner of horrible outcomes which can happen in all 4 of the quadrants. In essence, there is much debate about whether global warming will bring about the end of life as we know it. First of all, Al Gore shows that much of the low-lying areas of land will go under water. Well, forget that there is the very real possiblity that people might move. Look at Hurricane Katrina. Everyone in New Orleans didn’t just die. Most of them evacuated. Now imagine if New Orleans stayed underwater. Those people would still be alive, albeit the worse for wear, but they would be alive somewhere else. Nebraska or Colorado or wherever is still above water. In short, I highly doubt that 20 feet of flooding will end the human race, particularly if it doesn’t happen in a very short period. It should be noted that the IPCC predicted a possible 23 INCHES of ocean rise, not the 20+ feet that Al Gore touted.
So, my point here is that this absolute worst-case scenario of global warming going on unchecked might not be as catastrophic as the science teacher touts. As well, there is some compelling evidence that shows that the planet was quite a bit warmer for centuries about 1,000 years ago. And in this time, most of the northern hemisphere flourished. Most of England was able to grow grapes, and the great cathedrals were built. As well, financial prosperity marked the times. So, allowing the planet to warm a few degrees might actually bring about joy and wealth. So, we can see that there is actually a wide gulf of possibilities in the science teacher’s lower-right quadrant.
Now I want to look at the lower-left quadrant. In the upper-left quadrant, the teacher puts a frowny face because we’re all in financial ruin and depression. However, why doesn’t he use this worst-case scenario for the lower-left? After all, the cost is still the same. And sure, we may have “saved” the climate and prevented flooding of the lowlands, but we’re all still broke. Isn’t that the exact same worst-case result as the upper-left? So if he wants to look at these worst-case scenarios, I think he needs to realize that if we change our ways, and if the GCC deniers are correct about the cost, then we’re screwed whether or not GCC is true. This, to me, is the real big issue. If there is a high probability that financial ruin will follow additional Kyoto-type accords, then that financial ruin is going to hit us regardless of whether GCC is true. As well, what if GCC is true but it’s too late? Then we are just throwing in good money after bad.
Looking at the upper-right quadrant, which is where we do nothing but GCC is false, this seems the only place where good things happen and bad things are unlikely to happen. I think the science teacher should have put in a worst-case scenario here, which is that we could run out of fossil fuels. After all, Column B is “do nothing in regards to GCC” which is to say “business as usual.” But instead, he allows for a good outcome there, completely missing the boat on an element that backs his claim.
All in all, I find his logic very flawed and lacking in insight. He’s obviously trying to make a good case for “doing the right thing” regardless of the things that we can’t control, or can’t know at the present. He concedes that the science may not be all in on GCC, which is why he insists that we can only make decisions about which column to be in, not which row. As such, he completely ignores the arguments on the “GCC is false” side of the house. There are nightmare doom-n-gloom scenarios there too, you know!
He also seems to leave out other compelling arguments for doing what he deems best, which is to make wholesale changes in the way we get our energy. Principally, we could end up with sources of clean, renewable, cheap, and infinite energy. As well, we could clean up our atmosphere.
Frankly, I’m not worried about my grandchildren not being able to see southern Florida because it’s been flooded out. In truth, I don’t think that will happen. I also, in case you’re wondering, don’t believe that we are the chief cause of the recent global warming trend. But I’ll let you do your own research and thinking on that.
So here’s my own Pascal’s wager. Let’s continue to do research and see if we can get a very good understanding of climate and how it changes, and why, and if we’re the chief cause of it. As well, let’s put some effort into cheaper, cleaner, renewable sources of energy. Solar and wind power are currently super expensive because we haven’t spent enough time and money working on making it better. And if we can start to shift our energy sources from fossil fuels to wind and solar, and if we can get sources of energy that are cheap and plentiful, I think we’ll see an economic boon unlike any other in the history of mankind.
And hey, maybe the air will be a lot more breathable.
