Science is not based on polls of what people or scientists believe. It's based on formulating hypotheses, testing them against available evidence, and if they stand up to the test, testing it again. If it doesn't stand up to the test you modify the hypothesis or throw it out. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks if they can't defend their position against the data.
The hypothesis that human CO2 emissions drive warming doesn't stand up to the simple test of correlation. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. How can you have cause if you don't even have that?
I called efforts to control temperature change by controlling CO2 futile because it can't be done. Global temps were the same or higher than now 1,000 years ago and 2,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were almost 100ppm lower. Temps were higher 3,000 to 8,000 years ago when CO2 was only a little over 50% of what they are now. If you want to control global temps you also need to control water vapor, clouds, ocean currents, solar winds, gamma radiation, polar ice caps, plate tectonics, volcanoes, the earth's tilt, and dozens of other natural forces.
Regarding the financial stuff - all the bad stuff you expect to happen is based on computer models, more popularly known as computer games. It's all a wild a** guess dependent on the assumptions made when building the models. So far not one of the models has made an accurate prediction.
The things I brought up are all known problems based on real world evidence. There's no computer model, this stuff is real. How do you think it's more humane to waste trillions of dollars attempting to do the impossible when even just a fraction of that can save or improve the lives of billions of people?