I suppose I could see this as saying "if it really were catastrophic, why aren't we acting like it" as opposed to "it can't be catastrophic if we aren't acting like it".
A subtle difference, but to say it is a "deliberate mischaracterization" is just not true. I read the whole comment chain and I think my initial view was an easy one to arrive at. I would avoid conflating too many things at once.
If you solve that problem, then we can actually focus on what matters: making sure there isn't a real catastrophe (implementing policies that don't destroy the economy, building alternative energy solutions, etc). If everyone is terrified and panicked, you're more likely to get the whims of a totalitarian authority accepted by the population (go figure).
Instead of having "climate anxiety," kids should instead be excited and curious about what they can learn to help reduce the effects (or mitigate them away entirely).
The goal of a lot of the people here seems to be hysteria.
Hadn't you just accused others of mischaracterizing your views? Why are you doing the same to everyone arguing back?
I don't see anyone in this comment chain whose goal is to be hysterical or cause hysteria. We all simply view human caused climate change as obvious and want to solve it. I am quite curious as to how to solve climate change economically, quickly, without giving up too much way of life, liberties, or causing panic.
The public is not being hysterical. Rather the opposite, which is something you already admitted further up: people simply aren't acting at all.
You were the only person I accused. Because you did.
This is a deliberate mischaracterization of my point. No. Read my initial comment. My goal isn't to say climate change isn't bad. You're doing exactly what I called out above.