That's a hyperbolic decision matrix, though.

There is still issue with pascal's wager because the decision matrix is incorrect. If you take action, you experience finite, temporary economic loss anyway because what you've chosen to do is more expensive. If you don't do anything, you experience 'no change', which would mean continued economic growth.

I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that the Earth will boil into a Venus based on current levels of climate change. Most claims are that a few degrees of extra heat will wreak havoc with life on Earth, including humanity.

The problem with presenting decision matrices which propose situation with infinite loss is that there are far too many possibilities that people could propose which cause infinite loss.

I could say that you would experience infinite loss if you don't give me all your money because I'm the only person who knows how to save the Earth from being eaten by Galactic Space Monster Zuul. There are infinite potential claims for things that could cause infinite loss, we have to be rational about what we're actually putting into our decision matrix, otherwise it's worthless.

It probably looks more like this:

            climate change is real |  climate change is a "hoax"
            ------------------------------------------------------
           |     finite, lasting    |                             |
 do nothing|   human/economic loss  |          no change          |
           |                        |                             |
            ------------------------------------------------------
           |   finite, temporary    |       finite, temporary     |
take action|   human/economic loss  |    human/economic loss      |
           |                        |                             |
            ------------------------------------------------------

So, you can see that the decision is more complicated than what might be suggested by 'Pascal's Wager' because I've taken out the hyperbolic fallacious references to 'infinite loss' or 'infinite gain'. The actual decision now rests more on the degree of accuracy of the premise and what the exact consequences are. What are those values going into the decision matrix? Are they 0.5, and 1 compared to 0.9 and 0.9, or are they 0.7 and 1 compared to 0.8 and 0.8? Or something else entirely?

Again, I personally think that we're not doing enough to change our ways, at least within the degree of accuracy we've seen for climate change evidence, projections of its effects, and projected costs of 'green' technology. That's because I made a logical assessment of a complex situation, not a regurgitated ideological one, which is what referring to Pascal's Wager seems to induce.