This line of argument ignores future costs. The side that is skeptical about global warming is not 100% skeptical. Suppose they can agree that global warming ef

This line of argument ignores future costs. The side that is skeptical about global warming is not 100% skeptical. Suppose they can agree that global warming effect is true with some probability p (say 5%). Then let's consider two scenarios - we do nothing about global warming, or humans manage to put resources together and handle it. Say cost of putting resources together is c. If we don't handle it we screw up the planet and the cost is C (which is orders of magnitude bigger than c). Then as long as c < p*C the skepticism should not matter to policy - we should spend resources to handle it. Since C is orders of magnitude bigger than c even hard skeptics should be persuaded to act. The formula changes if the policy is set by generation which would incur cost c, and different generation incur cost C. That's what happening now - baby-boomers once again screwing younger generation and not much can be done about it.