Probability and Global Warming
American Thinker – Brilliant article debunking the man made catastrophic and exponential global warming bull:-
Imagine we have gone to a movie made by a former politician (who is not a scientist). In the movie we are informed (1) the earth is warming exponentially. (2) Human beings have been and will continue to cause this warming because we release a natural gas (CO2) into the atmosphere. (3) There will be catastrophic consequences from the exponential warming that will occur as a result of this release of CO2. (According to the movie the planet’s icecaps will melt, polar bears will die, and cities will disappear under water.) (4) To prevent these disasters radical changes are required to reduce the amount of man-made CO2 that is being released. (5) Draconian control of carbon dioxide output must be instituted by all governments of the world both by unilateral legislation limiting the use of fossil fuels and by tightly written treaties that further force the signatory countries to reduce their “carbon footprint.”
We’re in a dire situation — or so we have been told. To review, the catastrophes, and their solutions, are composed of these five (more or less) basic steps:
(1) The planet is getting exponentially warmer; (2) this exponential warming is caused by man-made releases of CO2; (3) because of the exponential warming, man-made CO2 releases are causing and will continue to cause unprecedented worldwide calamities; (4) to prevent these cataclysms man-made CO2 emissions must be immediately and dramatically reduced; and (5) the situation is so serious that individual nations must swiftly pass strict laws controlling CO2 emissions and international treaties must be quickly signed that insure that all countries are required to reduce their CO2emissions.
There are some philosophical problems that need to be ironed out before we take such arguments, and such movies, seriously: first, all of that catastrophic world-melting logic presented in the movie is based on induction. For example, the only way to conclude that the whole world is getting generally exponentially warmer is to foster the conclusion by taking lots and lots of specific measurements of exponentially higher and higher temperatures over time. (This also means that argument number (1) — like all the other arguments in the movie — is an argument of probability.)[i]
Furthermore, all five of the steps I have outlined above are based on what is known as sequential conditional logic.[ii] This means, put as simply as possible, that if any of the first four steps is false then the remainder of the arguments (or argument) that follow the first step found to be false are (or is) also false.[iii] (This may seem counterintuitive – but think it through. Go through each step, assume a step is false and then see if you can prove as true any of the others steps after the step found to be false.)
What this kind of conditional thinking means is that we jump from one “possible world” to another – but the very existence of each new “world” depends upon the existence of the “possible world” that preceded it — otherwise we jump into a void. For example in our movie:
(1) The planet is getting exponentially warmer. This is only a possibility. So we are talking about a percentage of warming in a possible world — not necessarily our real world. (No one knows the exact temperature of the real world. In fact, there is no such thing as an exact world temperature. Temperatures vary throughout the planet.)
(2) This warming is caused by man-made releases of CO2. This is also only a possibility. So, we are talking about an approximate amount of CO2 in a possible world — not the actual amount in our real world. (No one knows the exact amount of CO2 being released in the real world.)
The exact same logic is true for steps 3, 4, and 5. All of the logic is inductive; all of the arguments are based on probability. If the conclusion (#5) is true, all of the previous arguments must also be true.
And, as anyone who studies induction knows: the longer the string of conditionals (steps), the lower the probability that the entire set of conditionals is true.
Let’s take a look at the math and then at the probability that arguments (1) through (5) are true.[iv] First I will show how the math works. Then we will try to run some probability numbers for the five arguments we saw above. (Remember this science is admitted, by all sides involved, to be based on inductive logic, hence it is impossible that any of the five arguments are 100% true.)
Here is how the basic math works: let’s look at roulette wheel — it is an easy example to understand. If I only have one dollar and I bet that dollar (and continue to bet all my winnings if I have any winnings after each bet) on red five times in a row, what is the possibility of me having any money after my fifth bet? (Remember, we are talking about truth in terms of probability, so another way of saying this is how true is it that I will win all five of my bets (= arguments) and have some money (= truth) at the end of my five bets?)
The probability of winning by betting on red on a standard American Roulette wheel is 47.37% each time – if I bet once. If I bet five times in a row the chances of my winning all five times is: .02385%. That is the correct number.[v] If I extend my bet five times in a row the truth of the possibility of me winning every time (expressed in terms of probability) drops to less than half of one percent.
We can now try to stick some numbers to those five arguments we saw above.
(1) The world is getting exponentially warmer. The key word here is exponentially. I didn’t say it and I don’t believe it — but proponents of global warming do. Here is their very famous “hockey stick” graph.
Tags: Science & Medical