More famous dead people who'd definitely vote ACT

[dken31]

What an ridiculously naive and untrue statement.  Your statement would be true if the steps being taken came at no cost, however the costs, aka allocation of resources, are immense. 

If we allocate significant resources (or slow down/prevent the creation or development of resources) towards "fighting" climate change, that takes away from what we can allocate to food/clothing/housing/education/healthcare etc.  

A really simplistic example of the ridiculousness of your claim: if we ban all farming, that would halt production of all the greenhouse gasses currently produced by farming...and most of us would starve to death.  Any step we take that makes production more costly or time-consuming adds to the cost of feeding and caring for people.

If it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time, the cost to health and wellbeing has immeasurably exceeded any benefit.

I don't think you realise how serious things are - we have  a choice. Try and have a controlled landing, or do nothing and crash and burn. You also have erected that straw man "ban all farming", which suggest you are not prepared to face the reality of the situation.

I don't think you really comprehended what I wrote.

Firstly, my comment you replied to was talking about an "if its hoax, are mitigation efforts still a net benefit" situation.  I didn't raise that scenario, I was merely replying to it being raised by someone else.  Earlier though, I haven't ever advocated for doing nothing, but I've strongly advocated for putting our efforts into adaptation and coping with the change, rather than trying to prevent the change.  Humans are great at adaptation and survival, whereas thinking we can control the global climate is just King Cnut level stupidity/arrogance.

As for my ban all farming example, the post I was replying to stated that anything we did towards fighting climate change would be a net benefit, even if the whole thing was a hoax.  I used the extreme "ban all farming" to provide a very straight forward example of something we could do to fight climate change that would quite clearly not be of net benefit, thereby clearly disproving the assertion that "anything we do is a step in the right direction".  I wasn't suggesting anyone seriously thinks we should ban all farming, and it wasn't an argument for doing nothing instead.