You can be in favour of major surgery on our civilisation to get to net-zero in order prevent climate change, and still think that this event was likely not caused by climate change.

And what would make me think that - the mere possibility of it being true is not a compelling argument.

I view this as separate from the debate of how serious climate change is and how much we need to intervene to address it. I'm simply pointing out that if we are to "trust the science" and seek the truth, then the reality is there is no evidence as yet that links this particular isolated event to climate change. I'm not a fan of distorting the truth to draw attention to climate change and achieve policy change as a "justifiable end".

What’s the cost of distorting truth in this case?

Taking Pascal's Wager regarding climate change?

But I thought that was for religious beliefs.

It was a metaphorical allusion, not a literal. Pascal's Wager is a very similar philosophical concept to the parent commenter's "why not choose" suggestion regarding climate change.

Yes that’s a great way to put it.

I don't agree with the idea that climate change science is shaky, but this is a bad line of argument to go down.

Here's an example of why it's a bad line to go down:

> There's no conclusive evidence God exists or not, so why not choose the side that is more likely to save your soul?

That's what I've never got as well. "Well it could help save humanity... but dammit, what is life if I can't roll coal on some bikers!!"

> If there is no conclusive evidence towards either side, then why not choose the side more likely to protect humanity from further harm?

Yes, completely agreed! Now we just have to figure out which side that is.

Put another way, you'll go a long way towards wisdom when you realize both sides of most arguments believe they are arguing for what is genuinely the best option, including what will protect humanity.

I'm not a client change denier, but it's silly to argue "why don't you just do what is clearly right?" in pretty much any disagreement.

When it comes to climate change, I‘m not trying to gain wisdom, but lobby for a world that is livable for the foreseeable future. That’s a purely political endeavor. Of course I could be wrong.

That's trivial: check which side is lining their pockets, then choose the other.

Which side is that, exactly? On one hand we have big oil and pretty much every industrial polluter globally, and on the other hand we have academia which "lines their pockets" by finding ever more questions that need answering, and stoking fear of social or environmental collapse to generate those questions.

Now, I personally know which side I trust more. However, if the lens is "who is lining their pockets" well, I am not sure that's really enough.

Ah, the ol' "a perfect world is one where I pull everyone down to my level" logic.