Being a skeptic is not a problem in science until the hypothesis includes the end of the world. Nobody cares if someone questions fluid dynamics, airplanes stil

Being a skeptic is not a problem in science until the hypothesis includes the end of the world. Nobody cares if someone questions fluid dynamics, airplanes still fly and boats still float, but climate change is not something that we want to test... and therefore the real problem here is being a skeptic on a hypothesis about the end of the world that will necessitate a specific direction for humanity. I'm not judging either way. I'm making an observation on the meta-narrative. I think claiming there is no danger and using pseudo-science is just as bad as claiming that an existential risk is already settled science and therefore questioning it poses a threat to humanity.