Here's an interesting video where a guy applied Pascal's wager [wiki] on global warming. YouTube user johnq5, a science teacher, asked this question: what is the consequence if global warming is false and we spend tons of money trying to prevent a problem that doesn't exist. And what is the consequence if the reverse is true: global warming is real, but we didn't do anything about it.
It's an eloquent argument, but see if you can find the flaw in the logic (no, I'm not arguing that global warming is real or not, just the danger of applying Pascal's wager to a complex situation).
What do you think? Is action preferable than inaction when the cost of inaction is so high, like in the case of global warming? A slam dunk argument? Ask yourself this: how about instead of global warming, it's Soviet nukes or Saddam's WMD.