From the Facbook site of Sustainability the Musical.

https://www.facebook.com/SustainabilitytheMusical

we challenge deniers for roughly the same reason that many were angry at cigarette companies for disinformation campaigns that denied the (well proven) link between smoking and cancers: denial costs lives. Misinformation that denies the reality of climate science is a large part of why there's no significant policy action on the greatest challenge facing the survival of human civilization. The largest collective scientific effort in human history tells us it's 95% certain about climate change, so how can anyone logically justify the risk of not taking it seriously? It's worth risking everything we have and everything we are ever going to have because why, exactly?

Either the science is correct, or it isn't, but whether we're asking the right questions and understanding the information correctly doesn't matter. We don't get to choose the facts. So let's imagine that we make a chart where column A says “the science is right” and column B says “the science is wrong.” We are in one of those columns, and we don't get to pick which one, we can only make the best educated guesses that we can. There is one thing that we do get to choose, though, and that is how we respond to the science. We either ignore the science and carry on with business as usual, or we take the science seriously and make changes to the way we collectively do things, so make those line 1 and line 2 down the side of our chart. Line 1 looks like this: If we follow business as usual, and the science is right [column A], it spells the end of human civilization as we know it. If we continue running our civilization the way we do right now, and the science is wrong [column B], the world stays pretty much the same. We're still running out of oil, damaging our environment, and widening the gap between rich and poor in a world where billions are crushingly poor, but we might be lucky enough to keep a climate we can effectively live with. So those are the possible outcomes of choice number one. Here's line two: If we make the kind of changes climate science calls for, and the science is correct [column A], we save civilization from oblivion and assume the mantle of greatest generation ever, revered by millennia of future humanity. If we make those changes and the science is wrong [column B], we reduce health and environmental hazards associated with dirty technologies, we have fewer global conflicts over depleting fossil fuel resources, and essentially, we make a better world for ourselves by accident. Oops. We don't get to choose whether the science is right, but we do choose how to respond to it, so which line on that chart would you rather live in? By the way, since 1991, 13,950 peer reviewed scientific articles on the climate have been published, of which only 24 of them reject human caused climate change, a ratio of more than 581:1, and this in a world where all the most powerful vested interests would do just about anything to prove column B, so how lucky do you feel?