Dodgy Data

I was particularly impressed with the Lancet expose whereby the graph as regards heat and cold deaths drew a false comparative picture. So much for 'the science' painting us pictures we can believe in and it shows how much trust we should place in 'the science'. I would be keen for a warmist to provide some idea why the graphs should have been so manipulated.

Several points.
Could you quantify 'small reduction'? So far it seems to be mostly much of the population will not be able to fly will have limited access to, and limited use of, cars, will have to be extremely parsimonious with energy use in winter and will probably be directed to 15 minute cities whereby the 'services' within their zone will be no better, and probably worse than current health, social and law and order services.

If the 'science is settled and the evidence is clear why the need for false information to be disseminated to the public by way of dodgy stats and misleading graphs?

If the evidence for manipulation was not so widespread then there would be no discussion but in general many feel we are being taken for mugs whether one is RW, LW  or undecided.

"Let's look at the facts" - are you having a laugh.

Let's take your "fact" number 1. Firstly - as has been pointed out so many times before - it's not about whether there is "climate change". And it's not about whether man is having an effect on climate. It's plainly obvious to most people who know anything about the subject (not you of course) that when the population of the planet has ballooned from about 1 billion to 8 billion between 1850 and now - and 75% of the land surface of the planet has been "repurposed" in that time - it is BOUND to affect the planet. The QUESTION is whether it's "predominantly caused by CO2*. That's what the politicians are claiming. FFS wake up.

As for fact number 2 there are more than a handful of scientists who are unconvinced the CO2 theory. In fact I can't think of any scientist who has supported the theory. Do you ever read anything about this subject?. In fact the main body arguing the case (the IPCC) is NOT a scientific organisation. It's a political organisation that always claims that the main problem is CO2 - and if the data doesn't fit (which it doesn't) it changes the data.

I'm dead sure we should listen to the scientists. And if you ask them if CO2 is the main driver of warming they will say they do NOT know. And if you know of ANY scientist who says they do know, Let me know who they are. And I know perfectly well you don't know of even one.

Well since we are on the analogy of a bookmaker let us consider what he does. He takes bets from punters and he over-rounds his book so that in most cases he always wins irrespective of which horse wins. So as a punter you may win, you probably will lose and overall you will lose. 
The odds you are contemplating are not those made by any bookmaker they are being made by those who work in the climate change industry (small warning bells should ring at this point). The information they present to the public is to try and elicit action as regards which bet they wish the punters (all of us) to make (more warning bells). This is all neatly packaged into a political agenda which actually never clearly says what the climate change alarmists would have us believe it says and when it does it presents little or no scientific evidence to that end. In other words they are manipulating the evidence upon which you are asked to take the risk you outline. It is like the bookies drugging the favourite so that they make the biggest win.
We have heard lately that 'cold spells' have become less frequent in the world. So far there is no evidence presented as to how that has been measured other than someone thinks it is the case. It is upon such data and statements that your 'forecast impact' is being presented. Every climate disaster is stated to be becoming worse or more frequent yet all the scientific data, and even the IPCC, do not conclude this is so.
I would not bet on such a rationale.

Not 'virtually all' many would be a better description and most of those who do say are following careers in climate science. Does that make a difference. If a scientist works for an oil company his point of view is suspect. I would think the same applies to those in the pay of the IPCC or receiving research funding to 'mitigate' the climate emergency.
It is not only RW politicians who say as such there are thousands of scientists and commentators who are sceptical of 'the science'. We all take chances on the weather and beyond a week it is a bit of a lottery yet climate scientists can forecast years ahead. 

Again we are back to 'relatively low'. Saying goodbye to cars, foreign holidays, warm heating in winter and saying hello to many more taxes is not a 'relatively low' effect for most people and it is most people who will bear the brunt.

Of course they are two different things but they rely on the same data and observations and in that sense they are intrinsically linked. Do you think scientists receiving money from the IPCC and/or working in climate research to mitigate the climate crisis are beyond reproach? I would have thought climategate would have cured you of that one. A scientific consensus is not proof. In 1978 there was a Scottish consensus form all the expert Scottish pundits that Scotland could win the world cup. A consensus means that just more people could be wrong.