You can be in favour of major surgery on our civilisation to get to net-zero in order prevent climate change, and still think that this event was likely not caused by climate change.

I view this as separate from the debate of how serious climate change is and how much we need to intervene to address it. I'm simply pointing out that if we are to "trust the science" and seek the truth, then the reality is there is no evidence as yet that links this particular isolated event to climate change. I'm not a fan of distorting the truth to draw attention to climate change and achieve policy change as a "justifiable end".

Taking Pascal's Wager regarding climate change?

I don't agree with the idea that climate change science is shaky, but this is a bad line of argument to go down.

Here's an example of why it's a bad line to go down:

> There's no conclusive evidence God exists or not, so why not choose the side that is more likely to save your soul?

That's what I've never got as well. "Well it could help save humanity... but dammit, what is life if I can't roll coal on some bikers!!"

> If there is no conclusive evidence towards either side, then why not choose the side more likely to protect humanity from further harm?

Yes, completely agreed! Now we just have to figure out which side that is.

Put another way, you'll go a long way towards wisdom when you realize both sides of most arguments believe they are arguing for what is genuinely the best option, including what will protect humanity.

I'm not a client change denier, but it's silly to argue "why don't you just do what is clearly right?" in pretty much any disagreement.