As I said before. Follow the money.
Even if everything being said about human-caused climate change is true, a global tax to attempt to reduce carbon emissions is not necessarily the best way to handle the problem, but it certainly is nice for those in a position to profit from that tax. A real economic analysis may reveal that it would be cheaper to just relocate people who are in places that will become too hot or wet. Not that they’ll go along. People keep rebuilding in flood plains, and then complain when they get flooded out again.
But I have heard no evidence of alternatives for dealing with the problem. This makes me think that it was invented precisely to justify a global tax.
But I’m just a computer programmer. What do I know?