Echoing Q and McGrath: This is a situation where, even if you 'suspect' the alarmists might be wrong it is prudent to 'err on the side of caution'.

The steps needed to TRY to combat climatic change... developing clean energy, etc., ... will be of benefit, even **IF** the entire hypothesis were wrong.... and most competent scientists now believe the hypothesis is correct.

Most of the opposition is coming, directly or indirectly, from those who fear some sort of disruption to their financial interests in the short run. Some people are emotionally incapable of looking beyond their personal wallet.