If we do experience moderate to severe climate change, millions or even billions of humans will die in pain: through starvation or wars over resources. I know

If we do experience moderate to severe climate change, millions or even billions of humans will die in pain: through starvation or wars over resources. I know people like to consider that sort of thing in the abstract, but the thought of that much suffering actually happening should be horrific to anyone. So when people make the very important decision to take climate change seriously or not based on the shallow level of reasoning that you've used in your post, it scares the hell out of me. For your first point: you could just as easily argue that someone doesn't believe that poverty exists because they haven't sold all of their belongings and given the money to the poor. Some problems need very large political changes, and so it's perfectly rational (though perhaps hypocritical) to not worry about personal behaviour when changing it would be just window dressing. Your second argument boils down to "scientists have been wrong in the past". The fact that you're willing to take humanity's largest gamble on scientists being maybe wrong this time is irrational. The downside risk is literally the collapse of human civilization, with violent or desperate deaths for most of us, and the upside is that we'd managed to not be duped into making investments into energy infrastructure and enriching a couple of charlatans? Why would anyone take that bet? Granted, we can't be held hostage to every doomsayer that comes along, but the alarms that are being raised by scientists and researchers now is unprecedented. Something large appears to be happening, and no one knows what will happen, but everything but the best case scenario is very, very bad. If your post presents the best evidence you have, then you have practically no grounds for being as certain as you are that everything's going to be fine.