Video: 62 years of NASA meteorological data in 13 seconds.

This analogy comes to mind:

If your daughter was ill & you took her to the doctor who examined her and said: She’s got cancer, but if we act immediately, decisively we can cure it. And if 99% of ALL cancer specialists agreed — both with the diagnosis and the course of action, what would you do? Would you feel there was a “debate” if one person who specialized in statistics disagreed with the overwhelming consensus? Would you delay treatment? And how would you feel when you learned those few in disagreement were funded by the group that caused your daughter’s cancer in the first place?

That was left alongside this damning link by Facebook friend Jim Harris (who also happens to be a bestselling business author and was Green Party of Canada leader while I was also a Green parliamentary candidate in 2006.) 

Given our limited and only now exponentially growing knowledge of our world, I’ve always tended to be a bit of a skeptic when it comes to huge claims like the ones around climate change, but for me, Jim’s words really put the whole matter of climate science in perspective.

The best counter-argument I can come up with is, “but what if we spend all that energy and money creating a better world for no reason?” 

"What if", indeed. Let’s bless that "what if" and flourish it.