Hey, I have always said that there's a huge distinction between the science and the policy implications.
IMO the best reasons to cut carbon emissions have nothing at all to do with climate change. That said, there is no doubt that global warming is going to seriously mess up vast parts of the Earth. So the USA needs to have a plan for mitigating the effects within the USA. Starvation in China and India, flooding in Bangladesh, Netherlands, or Italy, heat indices in the 150s in the Yucatan ... those things are not properly American taxpayers' problem to solve.
Lack of water in California's central valley, the US southwest, or the Oglala aquifer ARE Americans' problem to solve because those things affect American food stability and Americans quality of life.
So, either get everyone to curb CO2 emissions (HAH! Good luck getting the BRICs to comply with THAT!) or else make a mitigation plan that allows the USA to survive the worst while the rest of the world (1) goes to hell agriculturally, (2) goes to hell economically, (3) start invading each other in order to blow off the social steam that comes from having billions of starving, underemployed people.
I'll buy there is a problem at all when the Gaia Watermelon Cult takes their fingers off the scale and their models have less than a 250% margin of error.
To wit, as a Tax Preparation Guy I was trained the IRS looks at recurring deviation of more than 1.5% as a warning sign of fraud....https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/10/ ... te-models/
At the end of the day I agree with you and respect your integrity in admitting that the seedcorn for the Kultists(and I am not including you in this approbation) is their mad desire to wreak massive policy change....
thus at best they are a political movement predicated on hysterical fraud, and at worst they are a literal Malthusian Death Cult who wants enforced population reduction and a neo-religion.
No good science starts with "fuck you because I said so."