There’s a video on YouTube proposing a solution to the global climate change (GCC) debate. It’s rapidly racking up the hits (over seven million so far). The video is entitled ‘The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See‘ and is posted by Greg Craven. Craven, who thankfully is not a loon although his humorous hats may give that impression, argues that we should act on GCC whether it is occurring or not. Faced with the indisputable fact that GCC is or is not happening (there are only two options: true or false), Greg makes a compelling case for action regardless of whether you believe in GCC or not.

'~' indicates negation or not. So '~GCC' means 'not GCC' or 'GCC is false'.

Our task, Craven urges, is to think in columns and not rows. Don’t get bogged down in the debate over whether global climate change is occurring or not (rows); rather, accept that GCC is true or false (an undeniable fact) and then consider whether we should take action or not (columns).

When you look at the argument this way you can see that although the best possible outcome is that we don’t incur the cost of GCC-mitigation policies and global climate change does not exist (the green box), the other possibility is that we don’t incur the cost of GCC-mitigation policies and global climate change does exist (the red box). So although the best outcome would be the green box, by choosing inaction we risk the possibility of ending up in the red box. Accordingly, although choosing the right column presents us with the best possible outcome, it also presents us with the worst possible outcome. The prudent thing to do, therefore, is choose action – the left column. The left column robs us of the best possible outcome, but it also saves us from the worst possible outcome. Global climate change may still turn out not to be true (the orange box), but by choosing the left column – action on GCC – we minimise the GCC risk.

Blaise Pascal made the same argument about 350 years ago to show that rational people believe in God – the famous Pascal’s Wager (see below). Pascal argued that given the risk of eternal damnation if God exists and you don’t believe, you’d be prudent to take a punt that God exists and believe. If, come the long sleep, it turns out God does exist, you’ve paid your dues and will be saved. If it turns out God doesn’t exist, you’ve paid your dues and you’re just dead; a bit of time wasted in church, but at least you’ve ‘managed’ the risk of eternal damnation.

People hear Pascal’s Wager but they just don’t feel compelled to believe that the rational thing to do is believe in God. Why? Here’s one reason: Because Pascal’s Wager is an invalid argument. Therefore, so is Greg’s.

Greg’s matrix shifts the focus from the GCC or ~GCC debate to the wager: [(Cost & ~GCC or Cost & GCC) or (~Cost & ~GCC or ~Cost & GCC)]. But the wager assumes what the ‘GCC or ~GCC’ debate does not – namely, that it could be the case that GCC is true. It is integral to Greg’s Wager that his interlocutor accept this assumption; but this is exactly what they do not believe. The wager attempts to get the adversary – the doubting Thomas – to accept that GCC could be true. If this is achieved, getting them to accept the cost of the wager is the easy part.

So, when you present people with the wager, why will they opt for averting cost, i.e. inaction? Because they don’t share the assumption made during the shift from the GCC or ~GCC debate to the wager: that GCC could be true.

Much of Greg’s thesis rests on the fact that even indecision counts as decision; even if we choose not to act, that counts as a bet that GCC will not happen. Nevertheless, Greg’s true task is to convince the interlocutor of the truth of GCC so that they share the assumption. Then he can proceed to the wager. That’s the only situation in which the wager is legit (i.e. avoids ‘begging the question’ of the possibility of GCC).

Many people will reject Greg’s Wager and won’t act on climate change for various reasons, many of which will be the same reasons that people don’t believe in God based on Pascal’s Wager. But whether they do or don’t is not Greg’s point; Greg’s point is that they should.

To prove that he is wrong in arguing that we should act on climate change you must engage with his argument – his reasoning. Just rejecting GCC misses his point entirely and is no rebuttal. But for those people willing to do the work and engage with Greg’s argument and reasoning, there are legitimate rebuttals. This is one of them: it is invalid to accept as an argumentative assumption the main point of contention, as Greg does.

Luckily, unlike the proof of God’s existence, the proof of GCC is an empirical question. There is at least the possibility of evidence that GCC does exist. Such evidence would be a basis for sharing assumptions. The problem, however, as Greg realises, is that science (empiricism) is never as certain as logic (rationalism). This being the case, there will always be room for doubters and nay-sayers.

Greg is appealing to people’s reason in the hope that coercion can be avoided; he wants people to choose to take action on global climate change of their own free will, i.e. based on their own reason. It’s an admirable effort, and one that will, I hope, get people to assess the GCC arguments. But if the time comes when people have to be coerced into the action column (through government policy, etc) it is better to coerce them based on strong empirical evidence than strict reasoning, if it is legitimate to coerce people to act at all.