So let's all build arcs then. Our invisible friend in the sky might at any moment decide to flood the earth again. He did it once, so it's probably overdue.
In short: "no matter how unlikely" can be extremely unlikely. That's when we use reasoning instead of blanket statements.
Ditto for operators - "foo + bar" does something quite different to "bar + foo".
This holds for practically all languages that overload '+' for string concatenation. Luckily in C this doesn't hold: there "foo+bar" always equals "bar+foo", even for strings.
So what do you suggest we do if a person is incapacitated, and doctors need someone's direction to perform life threatening surgery or not? Ask a random person in the hallway, or ask the person that is legally designated as the spokesperson?
I much prefer an elected government to decide upon these kind of issues than a religious tradition based on the necessities of living in the desert.
Because that's uncharted territory for law. Suppose there are three people in a marriage relationship, and one gets mortally sick, say in a coma. Who of the two others will represent the spouse, particularly when they are in disagreement. How would divorce be handled? Do the two left need to remarry, or does the contract allow to be continued? How does the estate get split up? How does alimony work? How would inheritance work? How would pensions work? What if there are 4 people, 10, 50? How would all this be structured legally?
Even in contract law, it's a big shift to go from two parties to more than two. Too much needs to be sorted out with too many institutions. That's why 2 consenting adults is the best we can do at this point.
For me, I draw the line with some basic facts and basic physics. If you disagree with those, I would say that you're in denial, and to have a rational discussion is as likely to have a rational discussion with a Young Earther on geology. This basic fact is that there is anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. We had a lot of CO2 captured in the soil of the earth, and we've put it in the atmosphere. If you want to dispute that, there's no helping you, you are in denial. Second is a basic bit of physics: with increased CO2 there is increased retention of heat -- given all else being equal. This is the greenhouse effect. If you dispute that, I would like to urge you to create a greenhouse and observe. We can fairly accurate estimate what increase in warmth we can expect with increase in CO2 concentration. Again, disregarding all other factors such as heat sinks and many of the things that make climate modelling so difficult. This is a highly idealized physical theory that cannot be blindly applied to climate, yet it establishes one important thing: CO2 is a forcing term in the earth's atmosphere by its ability to capture heat. And we can very exactly compute how much heat it captures, and boy, are we in trouble!
If you accept those two things, it might be worth having a discussion about climate change. We, as humans, have introduced a forcing term in the climate that can be expressed as an additional amount of energy that is retained in the atmoshpere, and we are now trying to establish the actual effects. It is fine to be sceptic about some of the results, but honestly, you should also consider the possibility that some of those models are right. Just dismissing them is not an option, as the idealized model already predicts massive trouble. You would have to explain how this is NOT a problem. Claiming ignorance won't help you here, as you are arguing that many knowledgeable people are basically wrong.
The third breed of denier/sceptic is the 'anti-alarmist'. They hate the discussion about what to do about climate change and are denying the science in order to derail the discussion. A fair person would examine the actual ideas, and propose a weighted argument about the costs of the ideas versus the actual uncertainty in the rate of change we're experiencing. A denier just denies the science.
Finally, there is the bona fide sceptic. Somebody that has read up on the subject, has found some major issues, and is busy keeping his peers (because he is climate scientist by now) honest. Some of them exist (people know them by name), and although many don't agree with them, the are fairly well respected.
So, what type are you: the 'young-earth' equivalent of the denier that cannot understand logic and science, the lazy sceptic that does understand a bit of science but cannot be bothered to actually read up on it, or the political activist that denies the science because he hates his policial adversaries, or a scientist that has some informed sceptical point of view? You seem to be a mix of the first three. A bit more honest than most, but still pretty deluded in your reasoning.
In response to climate change, Elon Musk made a point to make cool electric cars. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, some people have refrained from taking planes and are using their cars if they don't really have to. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, people have chosen to select energy suppliers that provide 'green' energy. Millions of people died.
At this rate of millions dying, we soon will have not enough people to put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the furnace going.
I am sorry that you feel left out. Guess what, this is what it means when the science is settled. It means that people stop caring about your untenable position. The world moves on and we are now looking at the effects of global warming, knowing that it occurs and that we do not know where it will stop. Glaciers are retreating, North Pole is shrinking, and Western Antartica is melting.
In contrast with you, Big Oil got the picture, and quite a few investigations are underway to figure out where the oil is when (not if, when) parts of the North Pole become accessible year around. I'm sure if Big Oil would listens to you they would save the 100s of millions they invest in this, but guess what, they follow the science, not the self-proclaimed sceptics that haven't been able to field a single climate model that explains how anthropogenic CO2 increase will NOT lead to climate change.