I’m going to respond to this question, as it’s an issue I’ve been following for years.
There is an obvious difference between claiming there’s a risk, and deciding what to do about it and how much risk there is.
Most real climate scientists (i.e. scientists who actually study climate) will admit (though many have to be backed into a corner) that there’s great uncertainty about the nature and extent of the risk associated with CO2.
Too many of them also don’t understand enough about the nature of non-linear systems to judge the risk of sudden changes. They either ignore it and assume that “global temperature” will increase at a rate determined by the transient climate response (and net CO2 emissions) or go completely ballistic and conclude that the world’s about to end (e.g. Hansen).
The other major problem is that most scientists who are fanatically alarmed about “climate change” don’t stop with pointing out the risk, but then go on to push their preferred “solutions” without mentioning that they have no better qualification to judge solutions than the average construction worker.
There are (IMO) solutions to fossil carbon that would solve the issue without significant impacts on the cost of fuel/energy, but my experience is that most people on either side of the issue don’t want to think that hard about it.
Those who deny the risk (usually without sufficient expertise to be entitled to an opinion) tend to say there’s no need to do anything, while alarmists usually seem to think the issue is so urgent and critical that whatever preposterously expensive solution they favor must be rolled out right now! No time to think about cheaper ways. Think of the children!