This is fairly disingenuous. The anthropogenic global warming industry is financed to the tune of several billion a year, in the US alone, to say there's no motive for anthropogenic global warming hysteria is comical at best. Thousands of Scientists and bureaucrats careers depend on keeping that alive, and as we've seen in the past when a scientists livelihood depends on proving something, they will. For decades we had scientists repeatedly and consistently prove that smoking did no harm. Further going against the grain in science can be a killing blow to their career costing tenure, grants, funding, and job offers.

Further every single future prediction is based on "computer models", and all have failed thus far to accurately predict where we would be today. A decade ago Gore was saying that by this time children in England wouldn't know what snow was. The problem with computer models is they're based on human input, so a model can be made to create any scenario you'd like. Anyone saying they have a computer that can predict the future is selling you snake oil.

But we can forget all this, let's go ahead and assume that without a doubt humans are causing it and we need to act. For even a trivial decrease in future warming, the planet is going to need to spend several trillion dollars. Trillion with a T. This money will be taken from the middle class and be distributed to three main parties, transnationals and NGOs, bankers, and bureaucrats. All of these groups will waste money, increase their own power and become richer in the process in the name of "saving the planet" this is the only things these groups have ever done, and will ever do.

Lastly, to prevent global warming we have to stop the development of the third world, home to more than half the 7 billion people on earth. Preventing them from getting heating, clean water, adequate food production, proper medical facilities, power production etc, literally guarantees the premature death of billions of people over this century.

So we really have two options here, one is that we spend money as need be to adapt (as we always have) to any climate changes man made or not.

Or we preemptively loot trillions from the middle class and have it squandered or siphoned by bureaucrats, corps and bankers, while ensuring the premature deaths of billions in the third world who we will force to remain in utter poverty.

The choice seems simple.