I think you are missing the point here. The question isn't whether we should do something but what we should do. The catastrophist claims basically opens up f

I think you are missing the point here. The question isn't whether we should do something but what we should do. The catastrophist claims basically opens up for a lot of really really expensive and ultimately useless solutions. As an example wind and solar which isn't even providing 1% of the worlds energy consumption yet touted as the great savior. When "the sky is falling" claims are going mainstream that opens up for almost any extreme solution no matter the cost. Of course we should do something about fossil fuels if nothing else for the pollution, but we already are and that's good enough compared to what the demonstrated consequences of Climate change is.