Someone put together a pretty compelling argument regarding the Global Warming debate, which pretty much, hopefully, ends the need for further discussion on the matter. If you've got a few minutes, (and I know you do, you losers :P), have a click.

indeed. as someone commented on the site that the video is hosted, its a variation on Pascal's Wager

The risks associated with non-belief (hell) far outweigh the virtually negligible cost of belief, and the benefits (heaven) far outweigh the relative freedoms of non-belief.

So from a logical perspective, why not believe in God?

I would say its application with regard to global warming are a more useful one, since heaven and hell aren't KNOWN costs. Whereas we have a much better knowledge the costs of action on global warming and its consequences.

As much as I'm for our world leaders actually committing some significant resources to this problem, the man's reasoning is fatally flawed.

He presumes that bringing our attention, significant to huge amounts of money, and concentrated efforts to bear equate to the problem being solved. Other options include:

A) It's going to get worse and we can't stop it. B) It will require massive, global actions to put a dent in it. C) Global warming will hurt some places/cultures and will help others.

There are many more, and I don't want this to come off like I think Global Warming isn't happening - because it is - but I wish that selling people that we need to commit massive efforts to change this is all we need to do.

It MIGHT not do squat.

Just saying.

There's a difference between Pascal's Wager and erring on the side of caution.