Right. Can we stop with this "Would you board a 'plane" nonsense right now?
Here's Johann Hari with a classic of the genre:
Imagine you are about to get on a plane with your family. A huge group of qualified airline mechanics approach you on the tarmac and explain they've studied the engine for many years and they're sure it will crash if you get on board. They show you their previous predictions of plane crashes, which have overwhelmingly been proven right. Then a group of vets, journalists, and plumbers tell they have looked at the diagrams and it's perfectly obvious to them the plane is safe and that airplane mechanics – all of them, everywhere – are scamming you. Would you get on the plane? That is our choice atNow, I'm going to leave aside pulling apart the rest of the usual nonsense in this analogy (that the airline mechanics have not, in fact, been overwhelmingly proved right, that they have, in fact, spectacularly failed to predict even past crashes after they've happened, that the errors in the calculations of the airline mechanics are so egregious that they have been spotted even by the vets and plumbers and that when pressed on these egregious errors, the airline mechanics have then engaged in some rank subterfuge to cover up said errors) and focus on what Mr Hari and the warmists are NOT telling you.
It is this: the airline mechanics may indeed have your best interests at heart and they may genuinely believe (even though their calculations are a bit shonky) that the 'plane you are thinking of boarding has a 95% chance of crashing.
These, no doubt well-meaning, airline mechanics are not just suggesting that you do not board that 'plane. No: they are insisting that, instead of boarding that particular plane, you take their preferred mode of transport to your destination.
This mode of transport will:
- cost you an astronomical sum of money more than your plane fare
- be horrendously uncomfortable and unpleasant
- have negligibly better chances of survival.