Arguments against climate change simply assume premises such as: millions of people should not die, developing societies unable to adapt should not collapse, extinction of species should be avoided, humans should not alter the environment or use resources in a certain manner.

What is the scientific foundation of ethics? Which peer reviewed journal articles conclusively demonstrate that we must adopt these particular moral judgements? Have climate scientists discovered a solution to the is-ought problem? Is it biology, physics or another field which shows that opinions about what society should do are not politics, but science?

Until these questions are answered, opposition to climate change remains unscientific.