There is an interesting spat going on between two Welsh blogs at the moment.
On the one side is Paul Flynn MP. He argues vociferously that all that can be done should be done to slow down global warming. The MP calls those who don't accept global warming deniers who have undermined well-founded public alarm on Global Warming.
On the other side is the Cynical Dragon who accuses Mr Flynn of advocating a form of terrorism by raising peoples fears based on unfounded propoganda.
Both present their arguments with passion. Both make valid points and both claim to base their opinions on sound scientific evidence.
It is difficult to decide which one to agree with, especially for those like me who don't really have the scientific expertise with which to judge the merits of either side's arguments.
One way of dealing with this uncertainty is to adapt Pascal's Wager to the environmental argument:
If we reject the argument that human pollution causes global warming, but we make the wrong choice, the result could be disastrous.
But if we accept that human pollution causes global warming and we are wrong, so what? The result of efforts to reduce pollution and to clean up our world will be beneficial anyway.
Cymraeg
I am sure Gordon Brown is on the same side of the argument as Flynn. Could somebody tell me then why did he go begging to the Saudis to turn on the oil taps to over-drive last week?
ReplyDeleteVery good post and you are surely right in your conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI welcome your comments, however I think that Pascal's Wager is the wrong way to deal with this.
ReplyDeleteI think people should actually step back and look at the scientific evidence, more specifically avoid the pseudo-scienitific tosh peddled by people like Al Gore. I'm not suggesting we do nothing and I certainly don't suggest spending millions of pounds of tax payers money on something that may not be happening.
The main problem with Pascal's wager is that it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation. It only calculates with two options when there are more.
David (Cynical Dragon) Said:
ReplyDeleteI think people should actually step back and look at the scientific evidence
You miss the main point of my post, David. I don't have the ability to look at the scientific evidence objectively. I am not a scientist.
I am of an age to remember when scientists (paid by tobacco companies) claimed that smoking was good for asthma!
Stepping back and looking at the scientific evidence isn't a "reasonable" option for the scientific literate likes of me!
As to the "bifurcation" complaint, neither you, Paul or others from either side have offered a reasoned "third way" that I am aware of. If a third way did exist the tone of your objections suggest that you only believe in the two branches: right or wrong, so you are as guilty of bifurcation as Pascal, Paul and me!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou miss the main point of my post, David. I don't have the ability to look at the scientific evidence objectively. I am not a scientist.
ReplyDeleteThat is the challenge of scientists of all persuasions, demonstrating their arguments in the clearest way possible. It hasn't happened yet, we've either been faced by unpenatrable stats or bare faced propaganda.
I am of an age to remember when scientists (paid by tobacco companies) claimed that smoking was good for asthma!
Yes and now we're of an age when we're told we're all going to die from earthquakes, rising oceans and terrorism because of SUV use. It's up to real science to fight its corner and take on the bunk.
Stepping back and looking at the scientific evidence isn't a "reasonable" option for the scientific literate likes of me!
Not with the current information I grant you, but with a more co-ordinated and intelligent approach by science and governments it would be a reasonable option.
As to the "bifurcation" complaint, neither you, Paul or others from either side have offered a reasoned "third way" that I am aware of. If a third way did exist the tone of your objections suggest that you only believe in the two branches: right or wrong, so you are as guilty of bifurcation as Pascal, Paul and me!
I think you're misreading what I mean, yes my tone is angry. I am angry that an elected official is suggesting that people should be terrified into believing what he thinks important. I completely support better practice when it comes to recycling, environmental care and pollution. That just makes sense. The world would benefit from being a cleaner place. However, to scare people into believing something that may not be happening is wrong.
Mr Flynn is of the opinion that if you disagree with this you are in the pay of Big Oil, well I'm not, and the last time I checked his lot were the 'man' and in power.
I am not advocating the opposite of Mr Flynn, I do not believe in two branches....my posts are meant to highlight one fact. Mr Flynn, as an elected offical is a cock.
Pascal's Wager sounds fine but it doesn't really apply ..... the global warming cult are already taking about actively intervening in the environment to prevent their doomsday scenario ... these interventions could themselves cause untold environmental damage.
ReplyDeleteThere's also a price to pay for the global warming fantasies of the doom-mongers and it's being paid by the poor. Certainly not by the cultists themselves.