>Hi
>
>I am not a specialist in atmospheric science, so I will leave the esoteric
>discussions on climate modelling to those who are. However, from my
>reading of popular science journals such as "New Scientist" and "nature",
>it appears to me as if the general consensus is that the link between
>global warming and human emissions of CO2 is at least as uncontroversial as
>the link between smoking and cancer. I will therefore give it a subjective
>probability of 0.99. It is of course difficult to prove conclusively.
>
>But as any gambler knows, when we are making a wager, we need to know the
>stakes as well as the odds. If we assume the linkage is real and act
>accordingly, all we have lost is the convenience of using our cars, and
>possibly a slight reduction in our lifestyle. Given that cars are the
>cause of a vast array of other social and environmental ills, this is not
>much to lose.
>
>On the other hand, if we assume the linkage is not real until we have
>absolute knowledge, and make no effort to reduce our greenhouse gas
>emmissions, the consequences could be disastrous. Therefore, based on my
>subjective probability given above (or even a much lower one), a sensible
>gambler will bet on the linkage being real.
>
>I believe Pascal made a similar argument in his famous "wager".
As a side note to Michael's post, you might be interested in an earlier
book by Nicholas Rescher, _Pascal's Wager_ (Notre Dame 1985), which
discusses among other things the contrast between pragmatic justification
and justification based wholly on evidence (empirical or otherwise).
The wager, by the way, resembles very much Rescher's justifying argument
for optimism: if you are an optimist, you have nothing to lose but
everything to gain. If you are a pessimist, you have nothing to gain, and
you still lose.
best,
Jim T.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|