[AcerbicZero]

I think your issue is the similar to the problem I've been having, where the science of climate change seems to be ignored in favor of the politics of climate change, and questioning the later means you disbelieve the former. How strongly someone "believes" in climate change shouldn't be the metric by which we judge the value a person brings to the conversation, and the data/science should not take a backseat to political convenience.

I don't want perfect to get in the way of good when it comes to this issue, but this is a multifaceted, complicated topic, with far reaching implications, and it cannot be solved via an emotional battle royal of half formed politically oriented thoughts.

Semi-related, but I played a game forever ago called "Fate of the World", which attempted to put the player in charge of a global government to address climate change. It was almost viciously hard (The game designers may have been trying to make a point) but it was extremely interesting to see how you had to try and manage emissions from various regions, as well as political/social stability, ideally without destroying their economies (you need them to keep paying taxes to fund all this) all while trying to manage/reduce the damage caused by the shifting climates.