Anybody who has ever heard of "Pascal's Wager" has come down on one of two sides: It is valid, or it is so flawed, you can shoot thousands of holes through it. Blaise Pascal made a fatal mistake by basing his wager on the presumed existence of only one God - the Christian variety - thereby limiting people to only four possible outcomes with two given choices. In order for his wager to have been flawless, Pascal would have had to take all deities and religious beliefs into account. This scenario would have looked entirely different and vastly confusing, leaving people with an almost endless amount of choices, of which all or neither might have been the proper one.

Take, however, Global Climate Change. Could Pascal's Wager finally withstand scrutiny if applied to that scenario? Quite possibly yes. The following video makes a case for action against Global Climate Destabilization, using a form of Pascal's Wager, and it does it quite well.

Think of it as the management consultant's approach to evaluating the risk of Global Climate Destabilization aka global climate change. Here's an argument that will make sense to business people accustomed to evaluating risk and managing based on that risk evaluation.

While the video also only uses two choices and four outcomes, thereby simplifying the presentation quite a bit, it is easy for the viewer to expand on the graph by mentally inserting a number of varying actions that will result in varying outcomes. The results of this mental exercise are rather interesting:  While the actions may vary, the outcomes are lined up on one path, deviating only in degree of severity.

Do click through to the youtube page and click on the "More about this video" option for additional background information on the video and links to other supporting videos put together by the same person.