I don't deny that climate is changing. But if we're going to pick favorites from nature's children, I think it is in our own best interest to pick mankind.

I am not "truly" amazed that people can mentally delete the human population in whole or in part and claim to know what the Earth's climate should be like without mankind (or at least the "unnaturally" large number of them) as if the totality of human existence were an input to a computer model to be optimized for some target value.

Mental laziness is probably best. The common argument is that the costs to curtail are so enormous that it is not worth attempting or that we would be denying quality of life to up-and-coming economies.

My point is that it is easier to deny than work towards finding a solution.