I don't think the overstatement is accurate.
I can agree that humans may be too dumb to stop their contribution to climate change.
However if we are subject to natural climate change, we simply may not be able, no matter how smart we get.
At the very least we should abate our own influence of the climate, and perhaps learn to adapt.
Global warming has happened as has ice ages, in the span of human existence. Not a whole lot we could have done to stop it.
And we may face this again, no matter.
Nowadays if you're dependent on a grant – and 99% of them are – you can't make mistakes as you won't get another one if you do
Government grants are a large part of failure by politically managing what science can do or cannot.
Humans by majority are indeed ignorant in skills and skill sets even by comparison to our own grandparents.
Way too many could not survive in nature very well if forced to, and thus this ignorance leads to abuse of nature and resource.
I think the sceptic bloggers should worry. It's almost certain that you can't put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening.
Here is the problem, and one which has been defeated time and time again. We cannot expect to pollute without consequence. To point at global warming as reason to tax, yet omit the fact this warning was shouted for decades and ignored is the worst example of government.
We didn't know global warming would be a result, but it does not take much to know eventually something serious will.
We shouldn't let the lobbies influence science.
And in this is the problem in gerrymandering science.