a little story analogy regarding climate change denial

You're on your way to a business meeting that could make you a lot of money. Ahead is a bus and a small car parked on the side of the road before a bridge and a lot of men milling around. Several of the men frantically wave you down as you approach the bridge. Reluctantly, because you don't want to be late, you stop and ask the men what's up. They tell you the bridge ahead is dangerous and you shouldn't cross it.

You peer at the bridge and say it looks alright to you.

Another man saunters over and says to ignore them; the bridge is fine.

One of the men who warned you growls that the bridge is definitely unsafe and anyone driving across will cause its collapse and they'll fall to their death. He says you should believe them because they are bridge engineers on the way to an engineering convention. There are 97 of them in the bus, and they unanimously agree that the bridge is unsafe. He points to the guy who said it's okay and says that fellow and two others came in the small car parked behind the bus. Those three say it's safe, but they're not even engineers. One is an economist, one is a geologist, and the third doesn't seem to have any qualifications at all.

Do you risk the bridge anyway, or do you thank the engineers, and take a less direct, but safe route to your destination?

97% of scientists warn us we're causing catastrophic climate change. 3% deny this. The deniers are mostly economists, geologists, and others who are not climate scientists.

Do you choose a safe path, or risk collapse and death?

(Crossposted from https://miriam-e.dreamwidth.org/333695.html at my Dreamwidth account. Number of comments there so far: )