How many people would board an airplane that has a 10% risk of crashing?

You’re creating a false issue here.

Getting on a plane with a 10% chance of crashing is immediate. You get on a plane and you might die.

That’s an entirely different type of thing from something which abstract (what does “crashing” mean?) that is a half century away, and that may or may not take place?

Immediacy is one thing. Something that might happen in the future is an entirely different issue.

The other problem is one of the degree that I, as an individual, can avert the situation. In the plane crash scenario, I personally can make the decision not to board that plane. My decision is not based on the actions of others. And there is immediate cause and effect. I don’t get on the plane, and I am safe (except for the drive home).

In the climate issue, there is literally nothing I can do. (Yes, I can demonstrate and fulminate) My fate is not personal. It is in the hands of 5 billion other people who all have to act in unison, and further in the hands of politicians, who rarely, if ever, have my interests in mind.

So even if your question (three Sandys) takes place, and even (long-shot) if the US government takes an interest, the rest of the world is unlikely to make serious changes.

The bottom line is that your comparison simply doesn’t hold water.

@elbanditoroso – Both events are in the future. What’s different is the time span. And don’t forget, the airplane crash may or may not take place. In 90% of all cases it doesn’t crash. Yet for most people that’s not good enough. They are looking for airplanes with a 0.001% risk. Or even better. Now let’s take all the 10-year-old children. The 2040 earth will most likely already be a very different planet from today. A lot warmer. That’s just 27 years from now. Should we look for a planet that’s 90% safe? Or better 99.99%?

I don’t question your numbers at all, or the effects of environmental abuse.

The problem is not with the facts. It is about (a) public perception of the problem, (b) public willingness to act on that perception.

You can have all the logic and statistics in the world, but if the public (and the lawmakers) don’t buy into it and try to solve it, you’re simply pissing in the wind. (to use a climate analogy).

Stop the world I wanna get off!!
Actually no, let’s ride that wave & to hell with the consequences.

All the people that deny against all evidence and reason that the probability is that high.

Living is a risk, period. At any moment we can choke to death on a bite of food, fall in the shower and drown, not to mention the astronomical risks of just getting behind the wheel of our cars every day. Stressing over future events is a waste of time and energy, maybe the world will explode tomorrow, maybe it will last another 400,000 years.
One minute at a time, that’s all we have.

I would. Totally. Live dangerously and die young. Woo hoooo!

@DWW25921 Me, too. No bubble wrapped life for me.

I question the numbers, totally.

No climate models yet created have any validity in predictive value, as far as I have seen. In fact, the general argument against “climate models” in terms of science has been exactly that: they cannot predict with any degree of accuracy, so therefore they aren’t really “science”.

For that reason I question “the degree of warmness”, “the rate of change” and even “the effect of the change”. I also question the “10% chance” of “a crash”. How was that percentage arrived at, other than a SWAG, and what, exactly, is “a crash”?

@KNOWITALL I don’t imagine @mattbrowne was thinking about bubble wrapped lives, more about lives lived responsibly on this planet, not just thinking about the here and now but considering future generations, such as those belonging to our children and grandchildren, even great-grandchildren, and beyond …… If I’m wrong Matt, please speak up.

I had a pilot’s license and an old rust bucket 152 and all my friends went up with me anyway. In a mountainous area with lots of power lines. We are all fine and that is my hope for the world- I have young kids and I really care about this issue-

Yes, @Adagio !

@CWOTUS – You are wrong. The climate models have high validity in predictive value. They are based on top-notch science. Using data of the past and present allows scientists to make good predictions about the future.

Perhaps the airplane isn’t the best comparison because it is about the near future. Perhaps we should take smokers or heavily overweight people and talk about predicting disease and mortality 30, 40, 50 years and more in the future. And people actually care. Many like to change things, even though there no immediate danger this week or next months or next year.