No, I tried that tact early on in the conversation and it didn't work. If you look ack you'll find that it was the proposal of thought policing by the government and Big Tech that got me into this particular conversation in the first place.If Danicus wants to stop people from taxing his sandwiches, arguing that the Earth will still be here no matter how crappy things get (duh), or pointing out that humans are 'only' responsible for ~7% of CO2 currently in the atmosphere (which is a completely freaking horrifying bit of trivia), is shooting himself in the foot. Now, pointing out that spending more than the projected total economic impact on mitigation strategies doesn't make much sense when that money could do more good elsewhere, or that imposing limitations with a high cost on personal freedoms, whose actual mitigating impacts are not well understood, may be premature...well that might get some actual traction.
The problem with climate change policies (as separate from just hand wringing and blame flinging that typically goes on on a forum) is that they simply don't work, whether we look at them from a single country's economic model standpoint or of the world as a whole; The rest of the world expects the USA to castrate itself economically for little to no advantage to global health (still haven't seen a plan that works to save the planet, for instance) while China sails on to economic super powerdom on the shoulders of carbon emissions and coal fired power. I'm not specifically calling out individuals on this thread, but that's in essence what the climate change movement is all about. Take the "Green New Deal" for instance; not only is it economic lunacy, it wouldn't even fix the perceived problems. What it would do is ruin us, which I'm far more concerned about that then the necessity for me and my children to adapt over the next generations.