You're getting a lot of disagreement with parts of your first paragraph, but I think it's worth dwelling for a moment on the good point you make your second paragraph. There are two claims the NCPPR are disputing:
1. Climate change is a big problem, if not for the present then at least for the near future, unless we do something about it.
2. Given that, we should all make an effort to do what we reasonably can about it, instead of caring about nothing whatsoever except money.
If the NCPPR disagree with the first claim, then they should present their best case for that disagreement. I think they're mistaken, but if they have evidence for their position, then let's hear it.
But instead of making that case, they mixed it in with disagreement with the second claim, which is a bad way to argue (mixing empirical questions and value judgments) and makes them come across like sociopaths to boot.
1. Climate change is a big problem, if not for the present then at least for the near future, unless we do something about it.
2. Given that, we should all make an effort to do what we reasonably can about it, instead of caring about nothing whatsoever except money.
If the NCPPR disagree with the first claim, then they should present their best case for that disagreement. I think they're mistaken, but if they have evidence for their position, then let's hear it.
But instead of making that case, they mixed it in with disagreement with the second claim, which is a bad way to argue (mixing empirical questions and value judgments) and makes them come across like sociopaths to boot.