Pascal’s Wager as applied to Climate Change

[watsup]

“Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and actively strive to believe in God. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.”

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Likewise, a rational person should agree with a lifestyle consistent with the existence of global warming/climate change and actively strive to promote it. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes. If climate change does not exist, the population can continue to spew excess CO2 into the air with no negative environmental outcomes. However, if climate change does exist, then the population stands to gain a better environment in the future through proper measure to lessen excess CO2, in addition to avoiding boundless problems both environmentally and economically. The choice seems rather clear.

 

[craig]

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that he had no evidence at all. That would be very low probability bet. That would be like selling your house and buying lottery tickets.

 

[tshade]

“Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and actively strive to believe in God. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.”

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Likewise, a rational person should agree with a lifestyle consistent with the existence of global warming/climate change and actively strive to promote it. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes. If climate change does not exist, the population can continue to spew excess CO2 into the air with no negative environmental outcomes. However, if climate change does exist, then the population stands to gain a better environment in the future through proper measure to lessen excess CO2, in addition to avoiding boundless problems both environmentally and economically. The choice seems rather clear.

Or just forget Pascal and use your brains by listening to EVERY reputable science agency on Earth whom ALL say it is real.........................enough said

 

[spud_meister]

A "rational persons lifestyle" has no impact on climate change. I could run everything up to my vibrating buttplug off of solar power and it would have no impact on climate change.

 

[watsup]

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that he had no evidence at all. That would be very low probability bet. That would be like selling your house and buying lottery tickets.

Fine, but what about the OP directly.

 

[watsup]

A "rational persons lifestyle" has no impact on climate change. I could run everything up to my vibrating buttplug off of solar power and it would have no impact on climate change.

Thank you for proving the OP.

 

[spud_meister]

Thank you for proving the OP.

Quite the opposite. Individual inaction and action have identical possible outcomes, that is, climate change still happens.

 

[watsup]

Quite the opposite. Individual inaction and action have identical possible outcomes, that is, climate change still happens.

Thank you for once again proving the OP. As I said, the choice seems rather clear.

 

[dmpi]

Quite the opposite. Individual inaction and action have identical possible outcomes, that is, climate change still happens.

Give up on the OP. He's one of those people where it's not possible to have a normal conversation with.

 

[spud_meister]

Give up on the OP. He's one of those people where it's not possible to have a normal conversation with.

I'm beginning to see that

 

[spud_meister]

Thank you for once again proving the OP. As I said, the choice seems rather clear.

No, the OP is invalid as both choices have the same, negative outcome. It's like Pascals Wager, if both being religious and non-religious lead to hellfire.

 

[watsup]

Give up on the OP. He's one of those people where it's not possible to have a normal conversation with.

Projection of the month!

 

[PoS]

Give up on the OP. He's one of those people where it's not possible to have a normal conversation with.

LOL thats an understatement.

 

[craig]

Fine, but what about the OP directly.

There is an abundance of evidence on human created climate change. The question is how to best mitigate it. It is obvious that population and industrialization are directly related to the changes. Since population tends to decline in first world countries, our best strategy is to support clean energy in second and third world countries so that they can become first world.

 

[Simpletruther]

“Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and actively strive to believe in God. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.”

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Likewise, a rational person should agree with a lifestyle consistent with the existence of global warming/climate change and actively strive to promote it. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes. If climate change does not exist, the population can continue to spew excess CO2 into the air with no negative environmental outcomes. However, if climate change does exist, then the population stands to gain a better environment in the future through proper measure to lessen excess CO2, in addition to avoiding boundless problems both environmentally and economically. The choice seems rather clear.

Send me a check every month or i will destroy the world.

 

[Deuce]

A "rational persons lifestyle" has no impact on climate change. I could run everything up to my vibrating buttplug off of solar power and it would have no impact on climate change.

The trouble happens when billions of people all decide the same thing.

If everyone waits around for everyone else to solve an issue, the issue doesn't get solved.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fine, but what about the OP directly.

The OP is a crock of shit. Trying to compare Pascal's Wager to Climate Change. The losses in living a moral life are virtually none. Perhaps a little fun, or things we should not as people do anyway. How about applying your ideas to how the weird lefties live their lives, and leave us responsible citizens out of it.

Demanding, and even forcing people to adjust to the countless trillions of dollars wasted on climate change, for such a bet, is flat out moronic.

Do as you wish regarding climate change but stay out of my pocket and do not regulate my freedoms.

You have been all along claiming that these green sources are cheaper. OK then. Petition the powers to be, to stop using tax dollars. If it is in fact cheaper, the free market will support it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm beginning to see that

Just wait until you are on his shit list like I am.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The trouble happens when billions of people all decide the same thing.

If everyone waits around for everyone else to solve an issue, the issue doesn't get solved.

So....

In an authoritarian way, you and others think you know better, and bully the free people to conform to your authoritarianism.

Sorry, in the case of such stupidity. Resistance is not futile.

 

[watsup]

The OP is a crock of shit. Trying to compare Pascal's Wager to Climate Change. The losses in living a moral life are virtually none. Perhaps a little fun, or things we should not as people do anyway. How about applying your ideas to how the weird lefties live their lives, and leave us responsible citizens out of it.

Demanding, and even forcing people to adjust to the countless trillions of dollars wasted on climate change, for such a bet, is flat out moronic.

Do as you wish regarding climate change but stay out of my pocket and do not regulate my freedoms.

You have been all along claiming that these green sources are cheaper. OK then. Petition the powers to be, to stop using tax dollars. If it is in fact cheaper, the free market will support it.

“Likewise, a rational person should agree with a lifestyle consistent with the existence of global warming/climate change and actively strive to promote it. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes. If climate change does not exist, the population can continue to spew excess CO2 into the air with no negative environmental outcomes (even though science shows otherwise). However, if climate change does exist, then the population stands to gain a better environment in the future through proper measure to lessen excess CO2, in addition to avoiding boundless problems both environmentally and economically. The choice seems rather clear.”

Still makes sense.

 

[Lord of Planar]

“Likewise, a rational person should agree with a lifestyle consistent with the existence of global warming/climate change and actively strive to promote it. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes.

I get what you are claiming. You obviously fail to understand my response,l or simply do not give a shit. Personally, I think you are sop indoctrinated, you completely denied my point, with zero considerations if I had a valid point or not.

Like always, you are a denier of reality and science.

If climate change does not exist, the population can continue to spew excess CO2 into the air with no negative environmental outcomes (even though science shows otherwise). However, if climate change does exist, then the population stands to gain a better environment in the future through proper measure to lessen excess CO2, in addition to avoiding boundless problems both environmentally and economically. The choice seems rather clear.”

See now, when a topic need to be specific, and not generalized.... You are still programmed to say "climate change": instead of "AGW." Specifics are necessary if you wish to engage in productive conversations outside of those with your same cult following.

Clime change has always occurred on this planet. We are not Gods. We cannot change the climate. The agenda driven talking mouths will take any natural event, using the dumbing down talk of climate change, and claim we are responsible for every bad incident cased, even if is natural and we had nothing to do with it.

You side has zero integrity, and more people over time are realizing that.

Still makes sense.

Not at the costs involved.

Buy a new computer and the dealer tries to sell you an extra warranty at maybe 10% of the price. Even that if more than I wish to shell out. The costs of climate change legislation and subsidies are far more than this nation can afford. It is reckless to spend so much money because an agenda driven organization cherry picks information, and lies to policy makers.

 

[watsup]

I get what you are claiming. You obviously fail to understand my response,l or simply do not give a shit. Personally, I think you are sop indoctrinated, you completely denied my point, with zero considerations if I had a valid point or not.

The quote above shows why you are not to be taken seriously in debate because of the time that you spend in personal and generalized insult that has nothing to do with the centrality of the tropic, per se. If you truly want to be taken seriously, then you need to learn to leave out comments such as “do not give a ****” or “sop indoctrinated”. When you can being doing so, then serious discussion can be underway. This is especially true since so many of the pejoratives can also be applied to your side of the equation. Your comments indicate an anger management problem, and you would gain more credibility by getting it in check.

Like always, you are a denier of reality and science.

Yet more negativity on a personal basis, and a clear outright lie to boot. This sort of narrative only lessens your credibility.

See now, when a topic need to be specific, and not generalized.... You are still programmed to say "climate change": instead of "AGW." Specifics are necessary if you wish to engage in productive conversations outside of those with your same cult following.

I know what AGW is and I know what climate change is, and both are appropriate as AGW is the foundation of the present climate change. The following comment is unneeded and unproductive in the “productive conversations” that you claim to desire: “outside of those with your same cult following”. See my comments above for details.

Clime change has always occurred on this planet.

We cannot change the climate.

These two comments are totally ridiculous talking points that every simple-minded denier who has ever entered this forum uses as one of their first comments. You only lessen your credibility when you also make simplistic claims. It has become quite clear that the excess human-produced CO2 is both heating the atmosphere and thus causing climate change.

You side has zero integrity, and more people over time are realizing that.

Quite the opposite. More and more people are moving beyond the propaganda of Big Oil and understanding that AGW/climate change is indeed both a short term and a long term threat to humans and to other animals, insects, and plants.

The costs of climate change legislation and subsidies are far more than this nation can afford.

I have yet to find a denier who is willing to honestly answer the question as to what sort of long-term financial problems will be caused by climate change. We are already seeing them with the increase in housing insurance rates in Florida and in tornado alley, and those are relatively minor to what can happen in the long run.

It is reckless to spend so much money because an agenda driven organization cherry picks information, and lies to policy makers

All policies are agenda driven. Cherry picking is a prime tactic of the denier side. And there are no lies. Inaction would be irresponsible to the max because of the problems being created are worldwide.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The quote above shows why you are not to be taken seriously in debate because of the time that you spend in personal and generalized insult that has nothing to do with the centrality of the tropic, per se. If you truly want to be taken seriously, then you need to learn to leave out comments such as “do not give a ****” or “sop indoctrinated”. When you can being doing so, then serious discussion can be underway. This is especially true since so many of the pejoratives can also be applied to your side of the equation. Your comments indicate an anger management problem, and you would gain more credibility by getting it in check.

LOL.

This said from the man who creates several personal attack threads on people elsewhere.

You didn't even respond to my point.

Yet more negativity on a personal basis, and a clear outright lie to boot. This sort of narrative only lessens your credibility.

But you do deny the science. You favor bloggers and writers of science material over what the actual peer reviewed papers say. You accept the lies and misdirection of the IPCC that even states they have an agenda. Your appeal to authority is cute.

Ever consider if you stopped attacking me, I would be more civil with you? You can start being civil by stopping your chronic name-calling. You might think it cute but calling people with a firm grasp of science a "denier" is not appropriate, and if keep up your name-calling, you will be treated harshly as well. Do you like acting like the name-calling first grade bully type?

Don't school me on civility when you chronically start it the 8uncivil words.

I know what AGW is and I know what climate change is, and both are appropriate as AGW is the foundation of the present climate change.

Some literature claims that. Do you think nature stops doing its thing just because AGW is present? Peer reviewed papers shy away from making that claim in all but a very small percentage of them. Most of them will expand on other works, and only cite such claims as coming from elsewhere like the IPCCC without making such claims themself.

The following comment is unneeded and unproductive in the “productive conversations” that you claim to desire: “outside of those with your same cult following”. See my comments above for details.

It would be nice for once if you could engage in a productive debate about science. But you seem to only know what others tell you instead of understanding science. I will call you out as a cult member as long as you keep incorrectly call me a denier. Remember, you started this slander.

These two comments are totally ridiculous talking points that every simple-minded denier who has ever entered this forum uses as one of their first comments.

Yes, with you. Inconvenient facts are talking points. You too often dismiss facts by claiming "talking point."

 

[Lord of Planar]

You only lessen your credibility when you also make simplistic claims. It has become quite clear that the excess human-produced CO2 is both heating the atmosphere and thus causing climate change.

I never disagreed that it has a small effect. I just disagree with the extent that you and others claim. There is no proper scientific evidence to support the extent of the claims you and others make.

As for credibility, climate change can be natural or caused by our influence. However, our influence with CO2 is too weak to matter. There are other factors that warm that I have presented, and you deny. We need to focus on cleaning up atmospheric pollutants that are normally associated with CO2, but not CO2 itself. You do in fact, constantly deny science.

I laugh anytime someone implies we need to save the earth from CO2, because the earth loves more of it. This is an established fact in science.

Quite the opposite. More and more people are moving beyond the propaganda of Big Oil and understanding that AGW/climate change is indeed both a short term and a long term threat to humans and to other animals, insects, and plants.

I'm sorry. I don't get the same lying memos you do. Those ideas are wrong. Just more lies and propaganda.

As long as you mix climate change and AGW the way you do, you are seen as a part of the problem of truth. This is a science issue, and science deals with better specificity. This is one reason the IPCCC is a joke. And then their made-up scary metric called GWP. What a crock of shit.

I have yet to find a denier who is willing to honestly answer the question as to what sort of long-term financial problems will be caused by climate change. We are already seeing them with the increase in housing insurance rates in Florida and in tornado alley, and those are relatively minor to what can happen in the long run.

There are deniers, but they are closer to conspiracy theorists and do not know shit. There you go with your name-calling. The circles you ruin in must think it is cute to bully people from speaking that way. Name-calling.

Nobody has the answer to that. But I know this much. Such changes will occur anyway without man's influence. If anything, we insignificantly accelerate the process. The changes are so slow that we will tear down and rebuild structures many times over, so it really has little effect on any real costs.

All policies are agenda driven. Cherry picking is a prime tactic of the denier side. And there are no lies.

Now you are projecting as to how the IPCCC operates. Selecting only studies that support their agenda, and dismissing those that don’t.

Inaction would be irresponsible to the max because of the problems being created are worldwide.

Yet it is all a bad hypothesis. Not worthy of spending the moneys asked for and already spent. Science does not show such possibilities.

 

[watsup]

outside of those with your same cult following.

you do deny the science.

You favor bloggers

Your appeal to authority is cute.

by stopping your chronic name-calling

your name-calling, you will be treated harshl

Do you like acting like the name-calling first grade bully type?

you chronically start it the 8uncivil words.

you seem to only know what others tell

. I will call you out as a cult member a

Remember, you started this slander.

Inconvenient facts a

You do in fact, constantly deny science.

I laugh

. I don't get the same lying memos you do. T

Just more lies and propaganda.

There you go with your name-calling.

must think it is cute to bully people

Get back to me when you want to discuss the centrality of the topic in a reasoned, thoughtful, and civil manner instead of the lying accusations as above. I shall be waiting.