These pseudo "climate" scientists only show the "evidence" that back up their agendas.
Those are actual climate scientists. Which are in the mast majority. Also - the agenda ultimately is one of the UN. In a very direct and kind of obvious way.
Now - in the US especially, it benefits people with a globalist mindset, while doing nothing is part of a nationalist agenda.
At heart of the argument its pretty simple.
Regardless of who done did it (humans vs nature fake argument) - there are several reasons, of why people maybe should want to start looking at a concept called 'energy transition' (getting onto renewable forms of energy soon).
If one of the major players like the US says - ehh... *fuck it*, more people already are projected to die. Not in the US, not necessarily in Europe - but certainly in more affected parts of the world (also - with higher population densities). Less access to drinkable water as one pressing issue - f.e..
Now - at the driving helm of those movement are always people that might profit from it (because the idealists with money - are such a small fraction.
)
And yes - there is an odd angle of - If you are good at engineering social movements, that work, last - and change peoples behavior 'almost volentary' - that even can move market actors, investors, and so on. If.
And yes - I personally prefer, for people to act as somewhat rational actors with their own short/mid term interests at heart - because they can be manipulated less well if they do, at least in theory. Give them a greater goal by all means (it is what has been missing from politics for years), but at least make it political - so it can be voted off as well.
Make it 'almost religious' - and I will always think its highly problematic. Put up children in front of it to make it spread better in old age populations, and I'll always think, that its highly problematic.
Fair?
The proposals cant be 'your scientists are fake' because - large parts of the world are acting already. It has already become an economic issue/driver.
Now - if you are betting on - not my problem, public interest will not last, fair - do what the US is doing currently. But cut out the "evidence missing" part just to make you look good. Or make your populations less bothered by it collectively. Essentially - you cant push 'epistemes' with 'doubt' much longer. Thats just too easy of a way out.
Also note - that all of that is part of (popular) politics.