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?

a little story analogy for free speech

You're having a pleasant afternoon stroll in your neighborhood. With its tall trees, much shrubbery, plentiful birds, and lack of fences, it looks like virgin bushland, but it's actually fairly well populated suburbia, with low-built homes nestling among the trees, mostly hidden. You and most of the people who are privileged to live here are very proud that this area supports an extraordinary diversity of rare and endangered animals and plants, and is one of the few remaining strongholds of koalas in the state. Usually it is lush and green and damp because of the way the trees tend to keep everything under them moist, but we've been going through an unexpectedly long drought lately, so everything is unusually dry.

You round a corner in the path and are surprised and horrified to see a fellow standing, lighting matches and dropping them into the grasses near him. He seems fascinated with the fire and giggles each time it catches. In alarm you run forward, snatch the box of matches from him and successfully stomp out the flames.

This makes him angry, "Hey! Those are my matches! You can't take away my property. I have a right to them and to use them as I see fit."

Is he correct? Does he have the right to put everybody's lives at risk by setting alight to where you live? Fire is an incredibly powerful tool, and without it we humans probably would have died out long ago, but do we have a responsibility in its use? Does he have an unrestricted right to the matches he clearly owns?

Free speech is very important, and is an extremely powerful tool, especially in the hands of public figures, such as politicians and people in the media. Should they be allowed to ignite division and hatred among people and risk burning our diverse and peaceful society down? Or should it be a requirement of their position to be the best of us, wielding their tool of free speech responsibly?