Yes imagine we finally get rid of fossil fuel and live in a future with cleaner air and renewable energy everywhere and it turns out that global warming would have killed only one third of the ecosphere instead of the majority. Would be terrible.

Depends on the costs, no? I do not think many people are arguing against cleaner air or renewable energy.

End of humanity. Cost. Infinite.

The costs seem to be on the order of single digit percentages of global gdp for twenty or thirty years. That doesn't seem too expensive even if you only give a small chance to the IPCC being remotely right.

> Depends on the costs, no?

No

That sounds nice. Please do that.

Exactly right. There are prophets, child saviors, required beliefs that are not to be questioned. Of course it looks like a religion from the outside! It's almost like this was done on purpose to become a wedge issue for one political side. Not a healthy way to look at science at all!

God forbid someone should say "I don't agree that we have enough information to establish a global tax policy given the inaccuracy of previous economic models" - they must be a denier!

It takes away from the real hard work people do when a Swedish teenager is paraded around with a scowl and a waving finger that points at everyone but China. I think it's a mistake and sets the whole work back, but what do I know!?

When it's really about science and not taxes/power, I think more people will accept the ideas.

They really are hyper triggered by Greta. Remarkable.

You know she's one voice out of literally millions arguing that we should do something about climate change? Technically Peta throwing paint at people and ecoterrorists are "in our camp," does that all detract from the facts of climate change?

It's about the science. Seems some people simply reject that because the commonly proposed next steps go against their ideology.

What do you think of a revenue neutral carbon tax? I think they call it "carbon fee and dividend".

> It's about the science.

If it's only about the science, and the science has been settled for a decade, why do we seem to be getting nowhere? Might there be more than science involved?

> Seems some people simply reject that because the commonly proposed next steps go against their ideology.

It may seem that way, and to some degree it almost certainly is, but what if that isn't an accurate characterization of how it actually is? Might it be worthwhile to consider applying the same intellectual rigor that climate scientists use to the public psychology/discourse aspect of this problem, or is that somehow denialist, or something else? The suggestion always receives downvotes, I'd love to know why.

> required beliefs that are not to be questioned

these being?

> When it's really about science

it's about science.