If it creates an industrial base and turns your city into another Atlantis, the rest of the country would not see much downside.

Why would a change to green industries remove the industrial base? Would we produce fewer machines if the machines ran on electricity rather than gas? Would we produce fewer machines if they ran more efficiently?

As for the science, I figure it takes about a year of immersion to be fairly well versed in it unless you cram like a student before an exam. I don't have the time to get to that level on climate change. Heck, I don't have the time to get to that level on another fish species. Therefore, the best I can do is read what is readily available, weigh the motivations of the writers, and base an opinion on that. What I see is that there is not a balanced table. The VAST majority of climate scientists are convinced of the science. A portion are not. It's not 50-50, though, but rather 90-10 or better. That is fairly strong evidence that the science is sound. Without any strong reason to say otherwise, I will go with the majority.

The other question is what steps should be taken to remedy the situation. The ones I hear are ones that would take us forward to new technology, rather than back to old technology. That's progress in the right direction as far as I can see.