No, but those who want to get rid of an open and free society are.

The very people who you are trusting on the topic of climate change are telling you that it is already impossible to stop climate change and that we are headed for a global catastrophe.  In fact, just to have a chance at avoiding a catastrophe, they are saying that the world needs to increase its spending by 20 times over current levels between now and 2050:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/cost-to-save-the-world-cop21/

The cost of "fighting climate change" is far greater than losing a bit of money.  This level of expenditure is simply impossible for most western countries that are already racking up massive defecits with aging populations that are getting older by the year.  In practice, fighting climate change means that you will not be able to afford a car, you will not be flying, and your kids probably will never have jobs.  So given that the cost is insurmountable, why don't we actually ask some serious questions about the science before we start handing over billions of dollars in tax money to people who could very easily be using the science as a fake religion to get rich off of people.  Why are some of the most crooked corporations out there like Goldman Sachs such big supporters of climate change?

Furthermore, do not trust everything you hear, especially when the source needs to keep insisting that it is the only truthful viewpoint on the subject.  One of the things I have discovered in life is that the truth doesn't need to boast about itself, it actually welcomes dissent because argument only makes it stronger.  The climate change group, however, wants to jail all "deniers."  How can you look at that kind of argument and not think about the inquisition?

Case in point, remember how every economist out there was telling us that Brexit or Trump would mean the end of the economy and a massive stock market crash?  At the time the MSM was insisting that there was scientific consensus on these topics but obviously they were dead wrong on both accounts.  Twisting science for a political agenda is actually a very effective tool to shut down dissent.  Most scientists will never speak out against a political agenda because they can lose their careers for being politically incorrect and those who do speak out get made an example of (like that poor French weather reporter).

Since we're on this topic, recently found this funny image:

That's about where my thinking is. I'm all for what green energy or improving the earth is about, but i'm a little hesitent to fully trust climatologists.

Are we humans doing stuff to the Earth? Obviously, but I don't believe as much as they say.

1. Feels like every few years we get a new diagram showing how much of the Earth is going ot be under water at said date. Said date comes and the world is the same, the date just got moved ahead in time. Feels like watching a sci fi movie gloryfiying how hi-tech the world will be in 50 years. Then 50 years later its nowhere near what the movie shows.

2. Money. The climatologists are getting huge grants for their stuff, or their salary solely relies on what they are saying to be true. Or people believe them. I've had a job before, where I felt was unneeded. I didn't have much work to do and neither did the person above me. He could have easily done both our jobs. Was I about to go into my bosses office and tell him my position was unneeded?  Hell no. I'm not gonna fire myself.

But the real reason I am skeptical of whatever a scientists says about climate change is this

3. HIdden/secret data. All we ever see in regards to "proof" of climate change is graphs showing their results, or their conclusions, ect. The actual hard facts data showing every single reading, what data values were kept, thrown out, ect is all hidden behind some secret. Example, lets say their is 4 temperature readings at the north all using different tools. One satalittes, 2 thermomater, 3 electronic bouy in water, ect. They will all have a different reading. Which one did the scientist use in his conclusion? Why? Did he use the same tool at all the other readings? Why or why not? Is that the most accurate tool? Ect. I will NEVER trust a scientific organization or results if their data is not public knowledge. I can understand when some things require secrecy, but not this. They scream that this effects everyone and we all need to listen and this is for us all, ect. Yet they hide their data. Whenever a scientists proves something it is out in the world. Any scientists or everyday joe can on his own test and double check that scientists work and should come to the same conclusion.

So I will do what climatologists say, just because as your comic says, why not. But I don't trust them.

1. Movies are bullshit. Estimates change with new data.

2. That's literally every scientist.

3. You can research their data and measurement methods. Multiple different organisations across the world that study and measure climate arrive at similar data. Different measurement methods provide different accuracy in results. If I weigh myself with someone guessing, mechanical scale, an electronic scale and an atomic scale they will all be different results that's how measurement tools work. 

1. My movie comparison was just an example. Scientists have come out and said many times when stuff (Noah's arc type stuff) is supposed to happen and hasn't even come close.

2. Thus why point 3 is so relevant

3. That is my point. Climate scientists hide that data. They don't let us see which instruments they used, which data they threw out, which they kept, ect. Science should be transparent. If it isn't, it's not to be trusted, imo.

Basically what I'm saying is, I will listen to the scientists solution. Don't pollute, cut down my private jet time, bike if I can, ect. to save the world. Or just make it a better place. But I don't trust/believe their diagnosis. I feel like they are telling me I have terminal cancer of the brain when my head hurts. I could have terminal cancer of the brain, or I could just have a headache/fever. I need to see my mri/cat/ect scan showing my cancer before I trust them. I am not going to just take their word for it and read a pamphlet telling me about my "cancer"