The central thing to agree on regarding global heating is that it's anthropogenic. The debate is not whether the earth is warming or if trees need light, despite what Tucker Carlson was trying to peddle a few years ago.
It's funny that you don't see the overwhelming corporate money influence: in both cases big money is pushing quick adoption of vaccines and denial of anthopogenic global warming. They are different issues, and I hope you're not just another right-winger who only believes what righties are allowed to, just as the lefties do.
Again, the fact that some people fly while admitting climate change argument is laughable. It's not ideal, but the means justifies the ends. The whole of society needs to move - I make a very modest effort to push society in the right direction, but it is incredibly stupid to focus on one's own personal emissions as though they make a difference when the powerful have already decided to let the world fry.
Most of our debate is not something we will be able to come together on. I simply cannot understand the viewpoint that an individual would cede his personal choices to a government for the 'betterment of society' (again we cannot even agree on what is "betterment", let alone how to get there). As if I cannot decide for myself what is best for myself and family.
I assume that you have grown up in the embrace of a protective government, and can't fully appreciate what its absence would look like. There are many important things that you are unable to do for your family, things that can only be provided by government or an equivalent collective authority. That authority will need some support and funding and maybe even some cooperation on the part of citizens.
Edit:
again we cannot even agree on what is "betterment", let alone how to get there
I'm not convinced by that. I think if we started talking details we'd probably agree on most things.
Even when people agree about global warming, then the debate moves to how much humans are effecting it.
It doesn't help when people like Professor Lennart Bengtsson have their papers suppressed because they don't fit the 'narrative'. You can be skeptical of this, but from what I have seen with covid it only reinforces how big tech and governments collude to make sure their message is the only one people consider.
We also see some of the biggest advocates for lifestyle changes in the name of global warming flying around on private jets and vacationing on huge yachts. They are traveling en masse to climate summits (Zoom anyone?). It makes it hard to take any of it seriously.
Most of our debate is not something we will be able to come together on. I simply cannot understand the viewpoint that an individual would cede his personal choices to a government for the 'betterment of society' (again we cannot even agree on what is "betterment", let alone how to get there). As if I cannot decide for myself what is best for myself and family.