Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says we must act on climate change, whether or not the science is settled:
“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity…Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.”
This strongly resembles the reasoning of Blaise Pascal, the French philosopher. He suggested that on a risk-reward basis, a life of faith is more rational than a life of disbelief, for the potential rewards after death of belief in God are infinite, and there is nothing to lose if that belief proves to be mistaken. On the other hand, the unbeliever faces either eternal punishment or, at best, nothing after death.
Pascal’s wager is interesting as an exercise in logic and probability, and as a rhetorical device. But most Christians (including Pascal) would agree that it isn’t a serious argument for God’s existence. Why is it suddenly being taken seriously as an argument for belief in anthropogenic global warming, regardless of what the science says or does not say?
