Stoaty said:
Translation: "I know my doctor said I have a cancer and that without treatment it will spread, but I don't trust doctors so I'll wait until I see a hint of some physical evidence."
That's absolutely ridiculous. If I had a lever I could pull that would stop all fossil fuel burning on the planet with no ill effect, then I'd pull it. What else are you asking me to do, Doctor!?
You've really aimed for the wrong target with that pot-shot. You won't find a stronger advocate for renewables and nuclear power.
That doesn't mean I believe, or need to believe, other people's motivations for wanting that, though. It is perfectly logical irrespective of claims of climate change.
So... translation:
Doctor: "You've got headaches because of a tumor, even though it hasn't appeared on the brain scan yet. I prescribe this medicine, the only known side effect being that you're less like to lose energy during the day and that others will be less likely to control you."
Me:"I'm not yet convinced I have a brain tumor, but for side effects like that, what the hell, I'll take it!!"
You are exemplifying perfectly why natural-climate-change deniers seem to be more cult-like than scientific - you seem to think it is not sufficient to do what's right, you have to
believe it is right for dogmatic reasons before the 'fix' will work!
Am I persuaded that AGW is real? I think the 'evidence' I have seen does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the case. Am I persuaded that AGW is a false hypothesis? Again I have not see evidence that proves that beyond reasonable doubt. Neither case meets the criterion of 'proven on the balance of probabilities' and is nowhere near 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'.