....
We should start the work and let the research continue, if the research does a 180, then we will stop the work and admit we were wrong but to hell with abandoning science because of the chance we might be wrong. Mitigating climate change would improve society even if we were completely wrong and the climate stayed exactly the same way forever. ...
That makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, wait, you claimed it so it must be true. Really?
What evidence is there that "Mitigating climate change would improve society?"
1. Stop eating meat and become healthier
High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/25405402. Stop burning fossil fuels and become healthier
The air and water pollution emitted by coal and natural gas plants is linked with breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, cancer, premature death, and a host of other serious problems. The pollution affects everyone: one Harvard University study estimated the life cycle costs and public health effects of coal to be an estimated $74.6 billion every year. That’s equivalent to 4.36 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced—about one-third of the average electricity rate for a typical US home [6].
Renewable sources don't produce this pollution.
3. Make better use of water resources
-Most renewables do no require water either. Freshwater is an issue and electricity currently competes with agriculture and municipalities for freshwater use.
4. Incentivized sustainability-
Higher energy costs will make us think more about wasting energy thus wasting resources whose cost is linked to energy costs. More people might decide to live near work instead of commuting. Less waiting in traffic=less time wasted=more economic productivity.
These all range from outright lies, to exaggerations or one-sided vegetarian arguments, which ignore facts and studies to the contrary.
1. There are no "benefits" from stopping eating meat.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-vegetarians-live-longer-than-meat-eaters/2. Outright lie. There isn't any "air or water pollution" from natural-gas fired power plants.
3. Freshwater isn't an issue.
4. There are no "benefits" from higher energy costs. You are using circular logic here. Start with the idea that climate change is bad, then you conclude higher energy costs are good. But that doesn't get you to go back and say that higher energy costs are good even if there is no climate change.
Unless suffering of poor people is to you considered a "benefit."
You've presented nothing that substantiates your argument that "Mitigating climate change is good even if there is no climate change," but that's expected because if one spends time and money pursuing a non problem, that time and money is wasted.
