It is a scientific fact that Global Warming provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute certainty that they know the unknowable -- Laika The Space Dog
Since man-made Global Warming is becoming increasingly unknowable and avoids being accurately measured, progressive scientists are working hard on new arguments to convince the masses in the necessity to believe in it. In lieu of objective criteria it boils down to a simple matter of faith: Global Warming is, or It is not. But to which side shall the progressive masses incline? In a stunning breakthrough, researchers at Karl Marx Treatment Center have developed a revolutionary concept of the People's Cube Global Warming Wager which proves that believing in Global Warming is more advantageous than not believing. It's similar to the Pascal's Wager argument, only it's more progressive.
The original diagram drawn by Blaise Pascal in 1654 while developing Pascal's Wager argument:
We can argue that it is always a better "bet" to believe in Global Warming, because the expected value to be gained from believing in Global Warming is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of Global Warming, but rather one for the belief in It. This argument is specifically aimed at the ignorant masses who are not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of Global Warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, Man-Made Global Warming Wager can be described as follows: Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Global Warming is. If you gain, you gain all (prevent climate change and kill capitalism); if you lose, you lose nothing - but kill capitalism anyway. Wager, then, without hesitation that Global Warming is!
Al Gore provides information about man-made Global Warming but not proof for it. Should you believe in this Global Warming? This is where our Wager comes in, providing an analytical process for the masses to evaluate their options:
1) The masses believe in Global Warming and it really exists: we prevent climate change and kill capitalism: our gain is infinite.
2) The masses believe in Global Warming but it doesn't exist: we lose nothing but kill capitalism anyway and claim we saved the planet.
3) The masses don't believe in Global Warming and it doesn't exist: the growth of capitalist prosperity will continue unabated, distracting the masses from the need to fight capitalism. Faith in socialism withers away: our loss is infinite.
4) The masses don't believe in Global Warming, but it exists and arrives to smite the nonbelievers: See #3, plus our beach homes get washed away: our loss is infinite.
From these possibilities, and the principles of Marxist ethics (anything is moral as long as it advances Socialist Revolution) we deduce that it would be better to believe in man-made Global Warming unconditionally.
The following table shows the values that we assigned to each possible outcome:
(Please note that this is not an argument for the existence of Global Warming, but rather one for the belief in It).
Given the values, the option of believing in Global Warming (B) dominates the option of not believing in it (~B). The actual probabilities make no difference to the argument, since any non-zero chance multiplied by infinity yields an infinite expected value.
This wager demonstrates beyond doubt that believing in Global Warming is more advantageous than not believing. Researchers at Karl Marx Treatment Center are hopeful that this discovery will finally convert the nonbelievers who rejected previous theological arguments.
