The John Kerry Version of Pascal’s Wager

In comments recently, John Kerry tossed out the environmentalist version of Pascals Wager:

If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge—and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong—supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence—that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower.

Compare those statements to Pascal’s Wager and you have an eerie confirmation that anthropogenic climate change theory is in fact a religious dogma—an incontrovertible doctrine of the religion of humanism. Pascal’s Wager goes like this: It would be better to believe in God than disbelieve, since you have a lot to lose if God is real, and nothing to lose if he is not. Notice the similarity?

It is better to believe in global warming. Because even if global warming is completely untrue, we would all be better off in a “green,” post-industrial world.

Farnkly, Pascal’s Wager is much more compelling. But both are reprehensible apologetics in my mind. They are both manipulative. Why is gloom and doom greenhouse fire and carbon emission preaching all that different from “End is Near” street preaching on the imminent unleashing of fire and brimstone? They just aren’t different. The preachers of climate change are the fire and brimstone street preachers of liberal humanism. It’s just that simple.

But there are differences. You could say Christian apocalypse-mongers might actually care about the people they are preaching to. John Kerry, Al Gore, and the rest don’t give a carbon emission about humanity. Their goal isn’t to save humans from destruction, it’s just to save “Mother Earth.” Why do you think they love abortion so much? They want to kill as many people as possible, so that the earth can return to its former untainted glory. But they are also elitists. So… they, of course, would never include themselves in the “much-needed” human extermination.

But my biggest problem with John Kerry’s Wager is this: If his theories on climate change are wrong, there’s nothing that needs to be done. If his theories are right, there’s nothing that can be done. So you can see how a lot of us might not be believers. Spending billions of dollars, fundamentally transforming our way of life, and giving even more enormous power to the civil government while hamstringing our economy… none of these things sound like good ideas, whether Kerry’s right or wrong.