Climate activism has gained momentum that now makes it an unavoidable political issue, duly included in any electoral positioning, regardless of anyone's partisan orientation.
Ecologism feeds on it, aggregating all the evils of the earth, from local pollution to general biodiversity, chemicals, or hormonal disruoptiion.
According to the alarmists, a state of emergency would have to be called so that action could be taken without delay or other considerations.
Two overriding and critical factors underlie any opinion we may have on the climate issue:

•     climate sensitivity to CO2 (and other greenhouse gases);
•     the danger of exceeding a warming threshold.

A climate policy will be quite different depending on the values chosen for these factors.
Unfortunately, it seems that they are systematically exaggerated, both by experts whose science is far from being definitive and by the media and political circles.
Any criticism is unwelcome and risking it will lead to the intrepid person being given the defamatory title of climate denier (negationist).

In this essay, however, refutation is offered to the most repeated arguments by those who must be called climato-dogmatic because they refuse the very idea of debating them.

If one day the world will have to wean itself off fossil fuels, the way forward is neither hysteria nor negligence.
It is also not desirable to let totalitarian methods tempt to impose very questionable objectives and methods.