by Jimmy Nightingale

Created on: September 17, 2009   Last Updated: December 14, 2009

Most of the articles under this topic talk about the balance of evidence. Various approaches are described.

We have the mathematical approach, the search for proof, which is a difficult path when it comes to a scientific hypothesis that realisitically cannot be proven. A theory is put forward on the basis of available research and that theory is revised as new research comes to light. It is an incremental path that best describes the accummulated research. That is why the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assigns probabilities on various outcomes.

Over the years, the growing volume of research has led to a firming of the probability (currently greater than 90 percent) that global warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that we are responsible, through the burning of fossil fuels and a range of other activities, for this increase.

There is the betting approach. A reasonable person would not bet against an outcome that carries a 90 percent level of certainty. They might if the bet is purely monetary, as the payout for the less likely (the 10 percent) outcome might be considered worth the risk. However, no-one in their right mind would do this if a human life is at stake. To put it differently, no sane person would not get on an aeroplane if it has a 90 percent chance of crashing or play Russian roulette using a gun with ten chambers loaded with nine bullets.

The only scenario that may tempt someone to take on such a bet would be if that person were terminally ill, with a matter of days or weeks remaining, and the payout was sufficiently large to provide for his or her family for the rest of their lives. But that is an extreme situation and not something that the average person is likely to take up.

And there is the legal approach, the balance of evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming is real and that we are responsible. This basically boils down to the question of what is considered acceptable evidence. Do we limit it to the research in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Or do we expand our terms of reference and allow all manner of published material?

It is a tough call as much of the discussion would be obscured by the highly technical and mutli-disciplinary nature of the topic, way beyond the level of understanding of the average person in what would be the jury for deciding the matter.

Another approach, and the subject of this article, is one from a risk management

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>