Is there any difference in meaning between a that-clause and a to-infinitive-clause? For example, can't the following sentence
It is possible for strikes to happen at any time.
be rephrased with
It is possible that strikes will happen at any time.
I've been thinking about this since I read "may, might and can" from Michael Swan's Practical English Usage.
Can is not used in affirmative clauses to talk about the chances that something actually will happen or is happening(= 'It is possible that ...'). To express this meaning, we use may/might/could. We can use can to talk about a more general or theoretical kind of possibility(='It is possible to ...'). Compare:
There may/might be a strike next week. (=It is possible that there will be...).
Strikes can happen at any time. (=It is possible for strikes to happen...)
In the description above, there seems to be the assumption that It is possible that ... expresses a possibility of a specific event, while It is possible to ... expresses a theoretical possibility. But I haven't read about such a difference in meaning between a that-clause and a to-infinitive-clause.