I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

dcbwhaley: 
 

We really did ought to wait until we are 100% sure - OK 99.9% - that mankind is causing climate change….

Um, we are very much 100% certain. The (technical part of the) discussion here has been about the extent of anthropogenic effects, not whether there are any.

Besides, this kind of thinking is no longer generally considered appropriate in this context . Health, medicine, engineering safety, and now parts of climate science have been based for a long time on the notion of risk. 

Let us suppose you smoke cigarettes. Then there is a one in two chance you will die from a disease strongly causally related to your smoking. It is not certain. You might be like ex-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and chain smoke well into your mid-nineties before keeling over. It is also not certain that you will suffer a myocardial infarction. It is not certain that you will contract lung cancer. But the chances are enormously raised. 

Safety engineering has been based on the identification and assessment of risk and its mitigation for a quarter century. 

Of course, one of the encouragements for basing reasoning on risk was the argument from tobacco companies, similar to yours, that it wasn't certain that smoking caused ill health and it was inappropriate to take legal measures against use of their product until it was. People ultimately did not agree with that proposal, and neither did health-insurance companies in the places where people need health insurance, and people such as myself are now very thankful that we can go about our daily lives without having to encounter tobacco smoke. 

dcbwhaley: 
 

We really did ought to wait until we are 100% sure - OK 99.9% - that mankind is causing climate change….

Um, we are very much 100% certain. The (technical part of the) discussion here has been about the extent of anthropogenic effects, not whether there are any.

Besides, this kind of thinking is no longer generally considered appropriate in this context . Health, medicine, engineering safety, and now parts of climate science have been based for a long time on the notion of risk. 

Let us suppose you smoke cigarettes. Then there is a one in two chance you will die from a disease strongly causally related to your smoking. It is not certain. You might be like ex-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and chain smoke well into your mid-nineties before keeling over. It is also not certain that you will suffer a myocardial infarction. It is not certain that you will contract lung cancer. But the chances are enormously raised. 

Safety engineering has been based on the identification and assessment of risk and its mitigation for a quarter century. 

Of course, one of the encouragements for basing reasoning on risk was the argument from tobacco companies, similar to yours, that it wasn't certain that smoking caused ill health and it was inappropriate to take legal measures against use of their product until it was. People ultimately did not agree with that proposal, and neither did health-insurance companies in the places where people need health insurance, and people such as myself are now very thankful that we can go about our daily lives without having to encounter tobacco smoke.