This is the dumbest smart argument I think I've ever seen. This guy tries to apply Pascal's Wager to global warming. Basically, whats the cost of action or inaction given that we can't know for sure whether human caused global warming is real and controllable.

The trouble with Pascal's wager is that it will almost always lead you to the conclusion that we should do what the 'alarmists' say - whatever that may be in a particular instance.

For example, apply Pascal's Wager to the 'news' today that wi-fi causes autism in kids. Now, since we have to concede that this 'scientist' might be correct (highly doubtful, but possible), the question is one of action or inaction.

If we take action and eliminate wi-fi in households with children - whats the downside if the 'science' turns out to be incorrect? A little inconvenience of being tied to a wall for a connection. Not really much to complain about in the overall scheme of things.

So what if we take no action and the science turns out to be correct? The downside is that we've got an 'epidemic' of autistic kids unable to function as fully productive members of society. That seems a pretty severe consequence, thus we should eliminate wi-fi that kids will be present - just in case this guy is correct.

Try it with any of these types of gloom & doom news stories - the answer is always the same using Pascal's Wager.