PIMF
Actually no.
The logic is simple.
Look at it as a risk analysis. The science will tell you that the “row thinking” favors catastrophic collapse from AGW by much much more than 50%.
I even wrote a bunch on this very thread for why, of course, it is much much greater in favor of AGW being real than 50%
But let’s for the sake of argument say it is 50, 50
If AGW is wrong, and you do something to stop it, you have a 50% where the worst thing that happens is a period of recession - which is debatable, because there would be a huge growth of domestic energy production. It is unclear that society as we know it will collapse or that hundreds of millions will die as a result.
If AGW is right though, and you do nothing, the we have hundreds of millions of deaths, war, famine, plague and the collapse of civilization as we know it.
So suppose I offered you a choice, go through door A, and you have a 50% chance of getting punched in the belly. Go though door B, and you have a 50% chance of getting shot after you are gang raped by a troop of angry gorillas.
Which is the logical door to choose?
Now what if I told though that the best that science and data can tell you is that actually going through door B, in reality has a much greater than 90% of getting shot after a primate love fest?
What is the logical choice?