17th Century logic

Blaise Pascal was a C17th mathematician, precocious child prodigy (aren't they all?) and in later life a brilliant satirist-come-philosopher. As well as having a profound impact upon fluid dynamics and other very important physics related stuff that I don't really understand Pascal is also known for his application of decision theory to the belief in God. Faris neatly paraphrases what became known as 'Pascal's Wager' thus:

"Pascal argued that it makes logical sense to believe in God, in the absence of certainty, because it's a better bet to do so.

If God doesn't exist and you don't believe in him, you saved yourself a bit of bother: if he doesn't exist and you do believe, you spend a lot of your Sundays in church and there are some rules you are needlessly following.

If God does exist and you don't believe in him, you incur infinite loss: eternal damnation and hellfire and whatnot. If you do you incur infinite gain: eternal salvation and heaven and that.

Since you don't know whether he exists, the logical option is to believe: minor down side if you wrong, infinite upside. Whereas the alternative has minor upside and infinite burning and pitchforks in the bottom."

Hence Blaise Pascal inadvertently gave birth to the much bastardised (often by planners) 2x2 logic equation through which four possible outcomes may be mapped from an either/or set of variables.

In the video below a clever fellow whether knowingly or otherwise applies Pascal's Wager to the pressing contemporary issue of global warming. It might be observed that if there is a flaw in his reasoning it's that he presumes to know the amplitude of harm concerning two very complex issues (environmental and economic). All things not being equal one cannot say that the consequences of being wrong in one area will necessarily outweigh the consequences of being wrong in the other. What do you think?