Since 90% of humans will die in the described climate outcome where we don't drastically change fuel efficiency it seems like - while you're right - there's rea

Since 90% of humans will die in the described climate outcome where we don't drastically change fuel efficiency it seems like - while you're right - there's really only one logical choice. Also, your went right to the "accuse your opponent of some reductionist version of their point" disappointingly quickly (acknowledging that their "child like" jibe wasn't altogether called for, although it's not clear it was completely directed at you). Arguing seems like a very poor use of a very limited time to solve this for the sake of the next few generations of humans.