You're strawmanning the position. It's not that those skeptical politicians believe what they were taught in school-- it's that they see that the science can c

You're strawmanning the position. It's not that those skeptical politicians believe what they were taught in school-- it's that they see that the science can change, and that calls of doomsday can turn out to be wrong. Even Al Gore's doomsday predictions in the late 90s turned out to be woefully inaccurate. I'm all for being a good steward of the planet, but I think it's reasonable to wait in order to: - Make sure this is a serious risk, and not just something we can adapt to - Let technology develop so we can combat climate change effectively and without bankrupting the world. Furthermore, I see environmentalists who are anti-nuclear, anti-iron-fertilization, and anti-atmospheric-sulfur-injection. If global warming is truly an _existential_ threat, then why aren't these projects appreciated by the run-of-the-mill environmentalists?