If you let the journalism blind you to the science, then you're going to be misinformed. Read the IPCC reports cover to cover, and then follow up with the references if you don't think there is real science being done.
Problem us either is HN and Ars Technica are very political or techies and science lovers has started abandoning their love for evidence to participate in "troll hunting" not just blatant trolls but also anyone who asks any critical question.
And, as a former sceptic: from the outside climate science seems cult-like :-/
(That said, even as a former sceptic, I have advocated cutting the dependency on fossil, I do have all my shares in solar etc.)
Limited supply, geopolitical implications, and simply quality of air. I am not convinced that electric cars pollute less overall, as they will become obsolete much faster than a normal car, and I understand the batteries are problematic to recycle, but at the very least it creates pollution in low population density areas, rather than under the nose of tens of millions of people, including people with asthma, etc.
And I don't think I ever did, except for clinate sciences.
The reason they appeared cultish to me was the way anyone who doesn't immediately believe it must obviously be a troll or a paid shill and must be attacked.
Also the huge focus on "n x 1000 scientists can't be wrong" just screams bad science.