re: #642 Cugel

Considering both sides of the “What causes global warming” debate are able to provide scientific positions to support their own views, this whole issue strikes me as being a secular version of Pascal’s wager.

I think that’s what he was going for, basically starting out by saying that it doesn’t matter what the science shows (like Pascal saying we are unsure about everything). Thing is, Pascal’s Wager was criticized by many for a lot of reasons including, but not limited to, some logical fallacies (if I recall correctly).