Let me try again.

Suppose you own a valuable building. You are considering whether to insure it against fire and flood.

If you don't buy the insurance, and suffer a fire, your building is a total loss. Your small business fails. Your family may go have to go hungry, without health insurance. That's a pretty catastrophic loss.

On the other hand, if you skip the insurance and never have a fire, you'll save the money you would have paid for insurance premiums for years.

So what do you do? My bet is you get the insurance. The reason is the chance of a fire is so catastrophic, while the cost of premiums spread over time is a lesser burden. Your business won't go under because of the cost of the fire insurance.

Now, substitute global warming--a potentially catastrophic event--for a building fire. A change in our use of fossil fuels, including a greater cost of energy, is like the insurance premiums. You see where I'm going?

I don't favor drastic measures that would undermine our lifestyle. But we do need to first recognize the problem.

Jim

I don't mean to be dismissive, but there is no analogy between a criminal trial and global warming.

Your demand for proof of global warming beyond a reasonable doubt is a big risk. What if you're more likely than not going to be wrong?

I suppose there were people on the Titanic who demanded proof beyond a reasonable doubt the ship was sinking.

Jim

Deniers of science are for surely Trump backers. As everyone knows, Trump is a not bright (moron).

Deniers of science are for surely Trump backers. As everyone knows, Trump is a not bright (moron).

Plenty of science deniers in the Trump hater ranks as well, there’s a thing called biology that they deny, like when life begins, and 31 genders.