Toni,

I'm sort of hoping that your little beaver story was a rather cryptic attempt at humour...otherwise I've badly misjudged you, and not in a good way.

Still I'll treat post as a straight opinion....

Your story is a form of the precautionary principle ie if we do 'A' then 'B' might happen (even though its highly unlikely) and the 'C' might happen and then the spectacularly unlikely 'D' might happen and then...disaster. So don't do 'A'.

But its a ludicrous argument since it is based on mere fear rather than facts. And it can be played by any side.

eg: I was gunna cross the bridge to visit the shop in the other side. But I didn't and that lost sale meant the owner could make rent. So he lost his business and committed suicide. His virginal daughter, left with no other choice went into the city to make her way and ended up as the crack addicted sex slave of the local mafia boss. Had she stayed with her dad she'd have married the boy next door and conceived a little girl born on census night who'd grow to be the leader of a new female oriented religion. So under the circumstances I really need to cross the bridge and am probably justified in running over a few engineers in the process.

.........

oh one other problem with your story. Even if I paid the toll, the stone could still be dislodged. The existence or non-existence of the toll doesn't affect the outcome...just like the existence or non-existence of Australia's GHG abatement measures doesn't affect the climate outcome.

rache,

"It's OK to challenge my analogy of bridge safety "

I wasn't challenging it. I was using it to illustrate how you've utterly misunderstood the meaning of the 97% meme. You've accepted the lie that 97%of scientists agree that the future climate will be dangerous. But that was never true. You've accepted it because that's what was pushed by the alarmists. Now, I'm wondering whether, having been shown the error, you'll reconsider you views. I also wonder if you'll ponder what else you might have been misinformed about. Actually I think we both know the answer to that.

"how many started from one position and changed their mind. More likely they took an immediate stance and simply refuse to budge."

Actually, and I've written about this elsewhere in these pages, I did indeed start out beleiving the climate hype, but later, having accessed more and better data, moved to my current position. Did you take "an immediate stance and simply refuse to budge" or were you a 'denier' previously? Actually I think we both know the answer to that.

"It's an undeniable fact that ExxonMobile knew about the potential effects of fossil fuels on the climate and has been actively funding denialism since the 1970s."

The former is true, the later not. Exxon knew of the potential problems, as did everyone, and recognised that, if the science improved and validated the problems , things would have to change. But science failed to validate the potential problems, at least for now. Exxon did just what any honest organisation would do, which is why the #ExxonKnew court cases have fallen apart.

"It's unfortunate (for some) that the early effects (extreme weather events) had been forecast some decades ago to start at this time ..."

Yes it is unfortunate for alarmists when their forecasts are proven wrong. But, as we've seen, they can just make new forecasts and all the loyal followers will pretend to forget the past error.

"economic neo-fascists like Thatcher and Reagan.."

I'm sorry Rache, I can only educate you on one monumnetal misunderstanding at a time.

To add to my reluctance to 'jump into bed with the CC people', I would like to add another of many 'predictions' that were proven wrong in the end. We may all recall the 'millennium bug'. The computers were going to crash, as were aircraft and all manner of disasters were going to befall the world because, it was feared that computer clocks were only programmed for the twentieth century. Well midnight 1999 came and went and to the best of my knowledge, nothing happened. I imagine, those computers that were identified with the 'potential' problem, were fixed. But it was not possible to get to all of them in time. So here we have another example of science and data. Only this time ALL the data was available and not historic, and did not have to be extrapolated through theoretical means, because the information being sought was centuries old and there was no actual data. So imagine my surprise when I find out that all these bloody so-called experts simply theorise and calculate and eventually come up with the future. I am sorry but I am one of those people who believe in realities. I have experienced smog in many capitol cities around the world. In each case the air was clear and clean as it could ever be the next morning. In some cases it was blown out to sea, but in the main it was dispersed, to leave the environment clear to begin the process all over again in the new day. So those of you who believe in witchcraft, sorcery, theories and other intangibles, you are more than welcome to keep doing so. Until ALL the experts agree I'm staying put.

ALTRAV
Before turning away from all Climate Change science, please disprove the science of the 1800s in an earlier post of mine. Those scientists created the prime building blocks for todays understanding.

Then visit
https://climate.nasa.gov
and
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php
and open your mind, or report back to this forum as to why you refused to look at these sites, if you are game!

Toni, I get the feeling that these sites will attempt to help your side of the discussion. If that is the case I already know what to expect. We'll see if I decide to check em out. In the meantime I am reminded of Nostradamus. His story has similar connotations to many events of past. Even though I believe his abilities to be bogus, he still managed to garner a lot of influential and common people to believe him. I have always thought he wrote his predictions as vague as possible so that a reader would interpret them to suite their expectations. This of course was not helped by the many translations over the years.
I have just read some of the NASA link. I find typically, too many non-committal words such as 'could be', 'possibly', 'it is thought to be', 'it is possible'. In other words it all sounds very 'possible', but is it accurate and absolutely true? No the articles I have read so far give 'best guess' analyses. So even though you are convinced because institutions like NASA are supposed to be credible and therefore believable, it is because they do not write in definites and actuals that I am skeptical of such reports and documents and their contents or findings. In some ways not unlike our friend Nostradamus.

Look at tonight’s 4 Corners. Listen to farmers facing major changes in managing farms. Listen to emergency services speaking. Listen to financial organisations demanding Climate Change risks be addressed, must be addressed according to APRA. Listen to CC caused coastal damage, and need for all coastal regions needing to plan for sea level rise. And much more.