Sad to say you are right, and as in any war truth is always its first victim. And it all turns into propaganda.

Hence I'm a huge fan of John Stuart Mill's proposition as a principle to always listen to the other side because you never know, they just could be right. (a similar point made by James G. March on the needed view of outliers, especially during turbulent times).

I'm not a climate scientist, and I can't verify the data used but I can follow rational logical argumentation. David Siegel puts up an extended argumentation for which I don't have the knowledge to be able to falsify. So it remains on the table as theory until someone does. But none have, they prefer to simply ignore it.

This is very stupid because rationally forces me then to include Siegel's perspective in the possible scenario matrix. As I can't know whether he is (in part) right or (completely) wrong. As for society, it does matter a lot for the viable options and the choices I consequentially must make.

The second, far more worrying, point is Toby Ord's existential risk estimates. He states we have far bigger fish to fry. We are not doing so because we are stuck on polarising each other on (relatively minor) climate issues. Instead of reaching a quick consensus and moving on.

As with genetic engineering, it only takes 2 (lab) generations to reach a new species level and perhaps just another 2 to reach incompatibility. We would then be sharing our world with Humans 2.0. Humans that most probably are radically more intelligent than us. And now for the final thought........would that prospect be a good or rather worrying one:)? Perhaps time to get our act together before our replacement decides it for us:)