Who is like God arbour wrote: And it will affect the people of poor nations more and earlier than the people of rich nations.
Why would this be? You're assuming climate change = crop destruction in more agriculture-based economies?
And there is another problem: Let us assume, that there is neither a proof, that mankind is responsible for climatic changes nor a proof, that it is not responsible. That still means, that it is possible, that mankind is responsible as it is still possible, that mankind is not responsibel.
What would you suggest as the next step?
Pascal's Wager is not a logically valid aid to decision-making.
Yes, it may have negative consequences to some economic sectors.
1.
Some?!? Well, I guess that's true to a point, since the way they're trying to set the system up it'll work like a progressive tax on the wealthy nations and a welfare system for the poorer ones. However, I would argue that even the welfare recipients are having negative consequences, even if they are gilded over by welfare checks.
2. The simple fact is that even if you use Pascal's Wager as a reasoning aid, you can't rationally do what the environmentalist left wants. Pascal's Wager might correctly lead me to roll up the windows of my car because it might rain, but what you're talking about is building a fortified blast-proof radiation-shielded garage so my car will be protected in case it rains nukes. Because, of course, my car will be super-important if that happened.
That is to say, you need a lot more than Pascal's Wager when you're talking about creating trillions of dollars of cost, unprecedented wealth redistribution, millions of lost American jobs, and of course the even scarier stuff like some of the wacky ideas of things to do to alter the environment, like spreading soot on polar ice and such.
3. The above brings us to the fact that global warming folks need solid evidence, which is the one thing they do not have.
They have neat hockey-stick charts like Al Gore's MBH98-based chart showing runaway temperature increase in the last 75 years or so, but that doesn't actually happen according to NASA's data showing no average temp increases since 1998.
They have models where they claim to be able to discount things like the sun from climate change models and so it must be man's fault, though this is logically absurd given that the sun is by far the primary source of energy and heat for the atmosphere, and was previously responsible for Maunder Minimums and whatnot.
And of course they have plenty of wildly unsupported and alarming predictions, like Al Gore's 20 foot sea level rise by 2100. (I guess it's all gonna come at the end of the century, since it has yet to begin.) Or the claims of super-hurricanes, despite 2007 and 2008 being among the lamest hurricane seasons on record in the northern hemisphere.
And so on and so forth. Each of these wild speculations has prompted politicians to make their own stupid ideas, like banning coastal development. That's over and above the bigger-picture stupid ideas like cap-and-trade and wealth redistribution and stopping everyone but China from building coal-fired power plants to defeat global warming.
4. The last point is that all these efforts to stop global warming are probably only going to hasten it if it were even true. The Prius accomplishes nothing, the 2005 tax credit for bio-fuel use backfired by making paper mills
include fossil fuels for the first time, and so on.
The politicians do not have the wisdom to either deal with the problem or control the people on the planet to such a degree as to enable them to fix the claimed problem. Only a 1984-esque society with dictatorial government power could do it. Do you think Pascal's Wager supports us going to that?
But neither are you nor am I a climatologist and are qualified enough to such an appraisal.
Ergo, Al Gore . . . also not a climatologist . . . is not qualified enough to make the film, by your reasoning. You are also not a climatologist and by your own sentence above you are thus not qualified to make the appraisal of the film.
Ergo your advice would apply to both Gore and yourself: "If I'd be you, I'd be a little bit more reserved to judge something from which I have no clue."