Here is my comment:-
The comment you make is a fair one. Before proscribing a painful and potentially harmful course of treatment, an ethical doctor would
– check the diagnosis is accurate – both in type and to the extent.
– Make sure that the treatment is likely to improve the condition of the patient.
In a similar vein
– The assessment of the extent of the climate change is not helped by failing to examine validity of the data or statistical analysis.
– Nor by ignoring contrary science.
– Nor by ascribing every bit of extreme weather to anthropogenic factors.
– Nor by ignoring the benefits of warming (e.g. less old people dying in the winter cold)
– Nor by assuming that a global policy is both the best available and that it will improve the situation.
– Nor by ignoring the harmful effects of oppressive taxes and regulation. You could reduce economic output and bankrupt the government. This could lead to the collapse of public services (with many dying as a consequence) and millions permanently unemployed. In the emerging nations, reduced output will lead to the mass hunger from which many have just escaped. It will also lead to an increase in wars.
To establish that climate change is the “biggest threat the world has known” needs substantiation. In the last century the cause of every major famine was either caused authoritarian government policies or by war. On the other hand, global growth ensured that, for the first time in human history, the vast majority of the worlds population can live free from hunger as a normal state of affairs, and each generation can look forward to better livings standards than their parents. For those who believe in peace and helping the poor should make sure that these achievements are not reversed.