> Global warming (incorrect): We wasted some fraction of human time and resources implementing carbon capture that wasn't necessary. Minor economic hit compared

> Global warming (incorrect): We wasted some fraction of human time and resources implementing carbon capture that wasn't necessary. Minor economic hit compared to the counterfactual situation where global warming was never considered. Consider carefully: what would happen if the massive body of corroborating evidence for global warming-- across many disparate fields of scientific inquiry-- was incorrect? We'd likely get a massive rejection of the sciences as a whole that makes current anti-science trends look minor by comparison. E.g., notice how many low-effort HN commenters currently reject social science out of hand because of the risk of P hacking. Imagine what happens when that goes into geology, biology, etc. Also, consider that Pentagon studies that make important predictions about refugee movements based partly on the same science. An evidence-based rejection of so many key institutions of civilization wouldn't be as catastrophic as doing nothing if global warming is correct, but it's a close second. Maybe I'm missing a steelman argument here? It's really difficult to imagine a version of "Global warming (incorrect)" which doesn't substantially depend on our knowledge of global warming being correct and doing something about it. Edit: Just be clear, I feel like this Pascal's wager argument is a bit like trying to talk a pyramid schemer down by explaining exponential explosion to them. You've got to realize at that point if it were simply about logic you probably wouldn't have an adversary to argue with at all.