This is a variation of Pascal’s Wager — the argument that says “if you believe in God and you’re wrong, it’s not so bad, but if you don’t believe and you’re wrong, it’s REALLY BAD so you should believe in God.” The argument as presented is flawed, whether it’s about God or Climate Change.

In Pascal’s Wager, a skeptic might argue that there are many possible gods, and that choosing to believe in one of them could anger the others, so there are other risks in the “believe” column and therefore it’s not a good choice. One might also argue that they find the existence of the specific god in question to be very unlikely, and therefore, that no matter how big the risk, the possibility is so remote as to be irrelevant. In other words, both (1) other possibilities and (2) the odds of each possibility matter for our decision.

The same is true of this argument. A skeptic could argue a third possibility, such as a meteor hitting the earth and killing everyone, which can only be averted if we develop technology at the maximum possible rate, which introduces a new risk into the “act on global warming” column. (A skeptic in this thread has already done something similar, arguing that de-industrialization could lead to widespread disease.) One could also argue that, in their view, the risk of global warming bringing about actual catastrophe is very small, and therefore irrelevant. In this case, like in the “God” argument, it matters both (1) what other risks/possibilities are present in each column, and (2) how likely each one is to occur.

Mind you, I’m not saying anything about the actual truth; I’m not presenting these arguments as my own. I’m just recognizing that the argument itself, as presented, is deeply flawed in exactly the same way as Pascal’s Wager. It presents one “hell” and states that it should be avoided, but doesn’t provide adequate reason to believe that it’s worse than the hells that might be caused by trying to avoid it, or that it’s likely enough to warrant consideration.

Now, the flaw can be fixed. You need two things: a convincing argument that the catastrophic consequences from Global Warming are VERY likely to happen (or, in PW’s case, that a specific god is VERY likely to be real), and a convincing argument that the alternative risks are enough LESS likely that they’re overwhelmed by the key risk. In other words, you need to be able to highlight that one box in the table and say “this is bad enough AND likely enough that it overwhelms everything else in the table.” Skeptics won’t act based on a philosophy 101 argument; they’ll act if their risk-reward assessment makes them believe the danger of Global Warming is real enough and bad enough to justify the cost.