This is a seductive analogy:
If astronomers spotted a huge asteroid with a 99.9 probability of hitting the Earth in 100 years, should we ignore it until we're 100.0% certain of its trajectory?
The only problem is that scientists can't predict what the worst impacts of global warming will be in 2109. I think the "Fire insurance" analogy is a better fit. But that doesn't seem to be in the climate activist playbook. Not dramatic enough, I suppose.
