The gambler’s argument

Despite being at the centre of an international storm, life continues at normal for most of us at UEA. Nonetheless, there is a sense that the leaking of emails relating to the work of the Climate Research Unit has done serious damage to the public’s confidence in the idea of enhanced global warming. Yet it is important to note that this is just an event, made significant by larger political and social processes – the growing mistrust of politicians among the general population; the declining belief in experts, including scientists (especially following on from very public failures, such as the BSE crisis); the success of interest-group lobbying; and the major splits that are emerging in right-wing political parties about the issue (most notably in Australia, but possibly also in the UK now).

Brian Appleyard’s article in The Times on Sunday made a good case for the science of global warming, including tearing down some of the key denialist hypotheses. I am convinced of this case, but that is not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want to articulate a different argument, based on rational action and game theory.

We are dealing with two variables here:

• Whether climate change is happening.
• Whether we act to curtail global warming.

The science debate is clearly about variable one, and this seems to be what we (society as a whole, rather than the scientific community) are finding it hard to agree on. However, independent of any science, we have freedom to decide how we are act on variable two.

As with any binary duality, this leads to four possible outcomes:

1. Climate change isn’t happening, and we don’t act.
2. Climate change is happening, and we don’t act.
3. Climate change is happening, and we do act
4. Climate change isn’t happening, and we do act.

Given these variables, which outcome is preferred? Obviously, global warming deniers would claim they are seeking scenario 1. But in choosing this path, they are at the very least, putting us at risk of outcome 2, which could lead to global disaster. Therefore, even if the science is open to doubt, a very strong rational argument can be made that action should be taken to curtail CO2 omissions. But what happens if we act? If climate change is happening, we can the action necessary to mitigate its effects (scenario 3). The worst-case scenario possible if denialist logic is ignored by policy makers, but then turns out to be correct is combination 4. However, in comparison with scenario 2, this is a walk in the park – at the very least, it will lead to all kinds of other benefits, such as a growth in energy security and the ending of a reliance on finite carbon fuels.

So what would the gambler do? Clearly, they would assume that global warming is happening and act accordingly. This strategy would guarantee the best outcome, maximising potential benefits but also, crucially, minimising potential losses.

N.B. I should add, this is, of course, not a new argument, but a variation of the classic game theory logic applied to questions of Cold War nuclear weapon strategy.