I think denying is also bad science. A healthy amount of skepticism over generalizations and alleged carte sues while acknowledging some risk is where I am. For example, if cutting CO2 didn’t come with any costs, it seems like a no brainer. But it does come with some heavy costs, so you don’t want to go down that road unless (1) you are pretty certain it will make a difference, and (2) you are relatively certain that the harm of not taking the change will be significant.
To me the Paris Accord was the right kInd of approach. The real problem with issue #1 above is that you have to provide a pathway to other countries, particularly developing countries, to participate and reduce their future CO2 contributions for any sacrifice to have any shot of making a difference. For what it is worth, I think we have reached a point of development that we can begin to cut CO2 in the US with already low and still decreasing costs. That is credit in large part to natural gas which will ultimately lose greater market share to renewables over time.
What would your criticism of the views and explanations expressed in this video be:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr2J_1J9w3A
And as a side note - Just as I think republicans gave up their seat at the debate over global warming by being science deniers I think the US is now giving up its role and most of its influence in establishing international policy on the matter by pulling out of the Paris Accords.