Objectively speaking this statement is false since there is no way to establish this so called "debunking" as a fact.
Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. Therefore, there is no way to objectively state that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
FWIW, I expected you to respond with something like that and it nicely illustrates how slippery the concept of "objectively deciding based on evidence" is.
So you prefer decide based on faith instead of evidence?
In the climate change example your opinions are not based on any evidence you understand but based on what you have been told the evidence is. To make that decision you instead choose to outsource the evaluation of evidence to people you choose to trust which is fine for you.
Yes. This is how we avoid having to 'discover' fire every generation, or recreate the wheel. Which is about as far as we're going if we have to redo everything the previous experts did, just to be sure they aren't misleading us.
But what happens when different people disagree with your choices? Are they "ignoring the evidence" or simply saying they don't trust the people that you choose to trust? Why do you think "evaluating evidence" means "trust the people/institutions I tell you to trust"?
Certainly you can choose to trust those who disagree with what the majority of experts say. This is what the anti-vaxers do - and as a result, children have died. Maybe that movement has lost that momentum now, but for those who have lost children, ignoring what the experts said because they 'work for big pharma' and 'are paid off', while the little guy who is ignored and mocked must have it right, certainly paid the price for their decision to trust themselves and non-experts instead of experts.
Again this is a perfect illustration of your "moral framework" in action. You have chosen to place more weight on the hypothetical harms caused by "climate change" than the harms caused by policies. This is a trade off that can only be made with a reference to a moral framework. It is why we all need one.
The people who are already losing their homes and livelihood would disagree with climate change being a hypothesis.
Furthermore, you don't even question of whether the policy of making energy more expensive is the best policy given the available evidence.
It may not be, but I am unaware of a better proposal. And it does work to some degree and any improvement is better than none at all.
That is a position that comes entirely from your "humanist" moral framework and you just admitted you don't care if people are harmed as long as you get to feel good because governments are "doing something" about CO2. Why do you think that framework is superior to one that says that abortions are wrong because "all life is sacred"?
I did not say I didn't care if people are hurt; I said the alternative is worse.
What is your moral framework that inspires you to deny the science behind climate change?