Why isn't Pascal's type of logic used on the subject of global warming?

I tend to agree; that's the main reason why I support reforms to counter global warming.

In my mind the jury's out on how much climate change is attributable to human activity, rather than geological and solar factors. So I try to be wary about "overreactive" solutions: (what are the long-term environmental impacts of CFL's and electric cars, for example? Does anyone know? I agree that in the short-term they seem like good first steps, but I don't count on them as lasting solutions).

But I think anything we can do to promote a general consciousness of environmental responsibility, reducing consumption, etc, is a very, very good thing.

Peace to you.

Pascal's Wager doesn't apply because overreacting to global warming bares a huge cost to society in terms of deaths and the standard of living. In Pascal's Wager, there is no down side.

The idea that humans are responsible for global warming is not based in fact. It is a strategy to continue handouts to people doing questionable research and to transfer wealth to the few.

Umm,

I don't buy pascal in religion, so I'm not going to accept the "logic" in science either... Especially since humans don't appear to be major contributors to the process. It looks mostly natural, and speaking from an arctic point of view, desireable ;)

"creatrix, eggnogstic" asked a similar environmental question purposefully using the Pascal's Wager form. Look it up, second question on her profile..

But that would mean slowing down the burning of fossil fuels and make it harder to own SUVs.

We need to think about the economy (snarf, chuckle)

Correct.

At least most of the deniers have come so far as to admit the evidence exists.

It has been done! Watch this video for the argument eloquently spelled out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

Hey, that's a GREAT point! LOL

Too true.