I think that we agree on the fact that a path needs to be found, and yes, it is one of weighing pro's and con's.

What we don't agree on is that I don't see climate alarmism as the extreme anti-thesis of climate denialism.

I say that without sounding the alarm we keep going the way we are, simply because profits, jobs, and a cavalier attitude towards climate change are the easy path. Since Al Gore went on his 'alarmist campaign' and the science is clear and accepted, we are still on a downward trajectory. Just imagine how bad it would be without sounding the alarm. Maybe more alarmism is needed!

Climate alarmism is necessary in order to make tough decisions that can be painful now, but reduce pain over the long term.

Climate alarmism doesn't mean, stop everything and let god give us the solution, but it means the problem is darn serious, getting worse, and each day we delay in taking steps to reduce our carbon and methane outputs we increase the risk of a runaway warming process that can be catastrophic.

I also believe that so called 'Climate extremists' like Extinction Rebellion have a significant role to play by keeping the powers that be (big oil, big money and government) on their toes. Let's not forget that these big and powerful institutions do not want change and they can make it very difficult for change to occur. On the other hand, the next generations have no power but will end up carrying the burden of today's inaction. Less than extreme action will simply be ignored. Their peaceful, but some may say 'extreme' actions, at least gets them noticed, and may give them some influence.