The tribalism goes both ways. Sadly, it's hard to be a pragmatic optimist and say "Yea it's probably going to change but there's also nothing we can do about it without killing millions of people through economic destruction and we'll likely adapt anyway (humans can adapt their civilizations in the time scales of climate change - see the rapid growth of Chinese cities), so let's not worry too much." Then everyone sees you as their political enemy.

> Sadly, it's hard to be a pragmatic optimist and say "Yea it's probably going to change but there's also nothing we can do about it without killing millions of people through economic destruction and we'll likely adapt anyway (humans can adapt their civilizations in the time scales of climate change - see the rapid growth of Chinese cities), so let's not worry too much."

That's not really pragmatic optimism, it's intense pessimism about human capability to adapt society deliberately in the face of a changing knowledge of economic payoff matrices without mass destruction mixed with bizarre faith that human society will adapt to changing payoff matrices without mass dedtruction.

There's no difference in the behavior that supports than denialism, the only real difference is that denialism is, for all its lack of grounding in reality, at least more self-consistent.

But in real life, do you actually expect we will stop climate change before it causes any serious harm? When do you think we'll start doing that? We've done almost nothing so far but what we have done is incrementally developed technology to allow humans to comfortably survive severe weather like storms, floods, and droughts. So I say pragmatic because it's a continuation of what we already do, and optimistic because I believe it will be successful at saving us. I've yet to see a highly likely climate change prediction that couldn't be defended against with engineering on a scale smaller than what we've already achieved.

> But in real life, do you actually expect we will stop climate change before it causes any serious harm?

No, we obviously can't, it's already causing serious harm. We can mitigate the rate at which it proceeds so that it's within the range that, with concurrent reasonably acheivable adaptation, doesn't cause global, cataclysmic harm.

Moreover, if we don't act to mitigate it, it will eventually—and in not too long—reach a tipping point where that is no longer the case.

Lol, finally someone with the same opinion as me. Yes, climate change is real, but it would be more expensive to stop it than to adapt to it

Nice to meet you too! It's a pity that so many people insist on taking extremist positions then pigeon-holing everyone into one of them. I just got called equivalent to a climate change denier, that's how pervasive the tribalism is.

> It's a pity that so many people insist on taking extremist positions

The fact that your opinion doesn't align with the usual axis doesn't make it less extremist, it just makes it extreme in an unusual direction.