Not sure if you misread the article or perhaps I didn’t articulate my point well enough.

I never said there were no downsides to fossil fuel use, or that we should cut down or forests or fill the oceans with plastic.

My point was that the scientific consensus that is often given to us was dubious, and yet it is often cited as a method to shout down dissenters.

On top of this, the earth is actually greener now than it has been in recent history due to Co2 emissions, and fossil fuels have fueled us to develop more protection against natural disasters than we’ve ever had previously, which is explained by the chart in the article.

There are undoubtedly problems with fossil fuels, namely that they aren’t clean and they are finite. However, if we’re to have a conversation about shifting off of fossil fuels, we need viable alternatives that can be implemented on a mass scale, and we also need to weigh out the potential immediate benefits which poorer nations could reap simply from using fossil fuels.

I’m not a scientist so I’m not making the claim that global warming is a hoax, though from my own research I would say it’s become highly politicized and emotionally charged to the point that any criticism is tantamount to encouraging the death of humanity. (As you’ve exemplified, frankly.)

We need to be able to calmly and rationally discuss precisely how bad the future effects of climate change will be, and what a realistic path forward would look like. Climate accords have proven to be largely ineffectual.