I cannot believe that I will die one day either. But the disawoval of my coming death will not undo it.
I am all for scientific diversity because in my own discipline you often find more truth on the fringes than in the mainstream.
Yet in natural sciences it is easier to find hard facts than in social sciences. The greenhouse effect is a fact, the rising greenhouse gas emissions of humankind are a fact and the rising average worldwide temperatures are a fact. That the majority of people who search for funky solar flares are paid by the oil companies and other corporate forces who have an interest in maintaining the status quo is also a fact.
Another fact is that the risks are asymmetrical. If you were right slowing down climate change would lead to some mild misallocations whereas if the entire scientific community is right not doing anything against climate change will lead to significant reductions or even a continuing decline of worldwide GDP.
Of course this is not the real issue. The real issue is, as you have said, that you do not like the political implications of global warming. You have an issue with "over regulation" whereas, to use your favourite word, truly unbiased people fail to see why a shift in taxation away from labour and capital towards CO2 emissions or the banning of light bulbs should be problematic. My purse is quite happy that the new CFLs require less power and it would be even more happy if I had to pay less labour taxes and more CO2 VATs.
It's a purely technical matter and only ignorant people who are not interested one iota in conserving a human-friendly climate on this planet oppose it. In my Jacobin mood I would say that they are the enemies of our future and have to be ruthlessly crushed.