A bet each way?

I'm a firm believer that it's actually OK for people to choose not to believe that man made climate change is real - that is entirely their right in a free and democratic community. If they want to assert that the whole debate is bogged down in clumsy science or inconsistent political outburst from every side of the political spectrum, then they're completely entitled to that opinion.
(First digression point (warning, there may be a couple of these...)) -  I struggle a bit with the right to express the opinion when its the State President of the Liberal National Party who wants to engineer the education department's curriculum from his desk (this from a party which is running the parlimentary arm of the LNP from outside the parliment with a "leader" who hasn't even been elected to parliament)). 

I also struggle when the "forces of rightness" (talkback radio - you know who you are!) whilst all the while calling for transparency and accountability in public debate, forget to mention the organisations they're patrons of (Galileo Society- you know who you are!) when promoting travelling heriditary peers on an anti-climate change gab-fest (Lord Monkton - you know who you are!)

However, I'm also a big fan of consistency in the way people translate their positions into their actions. It gives us an insight into what they value and what they don't. It also helps to sort out the things they're prepared to put at risk and the things which they consider too precious to compromise on.

I reckon we all get asked to determine these priorities nearly every day of our lives. In response we ask ourselves how likely certain things are to happen. We look for evidence of actions or occurrences around us and try to work out how likely it is that its going to happen again.

Some people are super good at this stuff. "Risk Professionals" do it for a living, carefully categorising the "what-if this happens?" into unlikely/likely/certain/guaranteed piles. Then they ask "if it does happen, what are the consequences?" and the responses might range from minor to catastrophic. Their choices are usually based on scientific or other reasonable information. Like all information though, it will never be absolute. It is, for the purposes of analysing risk, enough to inform a choice for prioritisation.

How does this relate to climate change debates? I'm simply advocating that we insist on some consistency in how we treat life's little gambles, that's all. Some folks who are advocating that (man made) climate change is not real suggest that we simply do nothing to change our approach to energy production, use and consumption generally because, the science doesn't prove it or at least, there's a chance that the science is just wrong. Like I said before, thats fine for them if they want to approach it that way.

However, in the interest of consistency, I'd like to require that those same people cancel their income protection, car, health  & house insurance because, in the absence of absolute proof (their test, not mine) there's a chance that they won't have an accident, get sick or have their house burned, flooded or burgled.

No? That's too risky? Well, ask yourself how many times you've claimed against those insurance policies, in the event that the very thing you're insured against has occurred. If you're like me, its probably pretty rare, but I'll wager (can't get away from the gambling language here can we?) that it doesn't stop us from being insured.
(Digression number 2  - I'd be pretty sure that the people denying climate change ALL have house insurance against the very risks I've mentioned)

Now, I'm sure it could be argued that there is evidence of those insured events having taken place, and I'm drawing too long a bow to compare say burglary to ongoing catastrophic climate change. But I think the majority of scientific opinion in favour of man made climate change falls into the same category, you know, on balance. So, we'll take a bet each way on those things, but not on climate change? Hmmm, chewy.

It also occurs to me that this conversation could take a theological turn  - what if I'm misguided about the nature, existence and grace of God too? Should I really wait till I die to test what I can't prove? Now, thats a whole new mouthful of chewy stuff.