This week’s Dustinland isn’t very funny (as usual), nor is it intended to be. It’s simply an argument I feel compelled to illustrate in the face of such frustrating debate around a very important issue.
When I look at a majority of the back and forth on the issue of global warming, I see a big mess of people getting caught up on the results of studies, with skeptics trying to define what qualifies as “scientific proof,” and it just seems to go round and round. While I believe there to clearly be more evidence on the side of global warming being a very real and man-made threat, I still feel that merely piling up scientific facts is not enough to convince skeptics. That is why I present this approach (which is ironically based on Pascal’s Wager in a sense). When it comes down to it, all decisions are based on risk/reward considerations, yet for some reason, I rarely see the global warming debate phrased in this manner. And personally, it seems like a pretty solid argument when you put it this way:
If global warming is real and we do something to stop it, we save our future.
If global warming is not real and we do something to stop it, we still create a better world to live in.