An example of Pascal's Wager; while it does give good food for though, this is NOT a good way to make decisions on belief (in either God, Global Warming, or any other numerous ideas).
It can trigger you to examine both sides of an issue, but if this argument is the basis for the belief, then you have already chosen poorly whichever side you chose.
It assumes you can tell on the outset all possible outcomes of either decision and can weigh the full spectrum of good and bad options from either choice; this isn't possible.
In the end you believe either based on Fact (if it can be proven empirically) or Faith (if it cannot).
The key is how do you chose between two sides when there are equally vehement facts for both sides of the argument, and both sides claim their facts are the only ones that hold up under scrutiny :)