Which is the more dangerous of these two scenarios?
This one - We believe the evidence that human activity has influenced various parameters and affected the average temperature of the earth, which is rising and will continue to rise by more and more as each contributory factor is itself made stronger by the effects on it of other factors. As a result of believing this, all countries make a concerted effort to work together to break the cycle. After a century, there is no more climate change and global temperatures return to what they were before the current rise. There is no way that it can be proved that the change was reversed by the massive co-operative projects that were carried out - so it might have happened anyway!
Or this one - We don't believe that human activity had any influence on the rising temperatures and the extreme climatic changes that we are currently experiencing. We carry on as we have been doing. That may be OK. However, if at some point in the next century (less?), it becomes apparent that the climate is not going to settle back to normal after a natural variation, but is permanently altered by human interference into a pattern that makes human (and all animal) life impossible, which will last for the unforeseeable future, nothing we do is going to change it. Even if something had been possible in 2021, it will not be possible if it is allowed to go past a tipping point. That tipping point could be frighteningly close.
Which would you gamble your grandchildren's lives on?