You mean the seat belt argument? The cost to society of reducing co2 emissions exceeds the cost of a seatbelt by a factor of several billion.. even trillion.

A nearby star could explode and kill us all. Should we figure out how likely that is before spending trillions to fix it?

Did you mean answer your question about what the odds would need to be? I would first need to see the rhetoric tuned down a bit, some listening to minority researchers first. Considering the effort spent in silencing them, the whole thing stinks to high hell.

Who else but phds have credibility in climate science, other than perhaps phds in another hard science? Some citizen advocate? Please. If we had this nonsense in medical science eggs would be illegal by now.