To reiterate an earlier point, the left works by half-lies—it rarely, if ever, lies outright: for example, during the 19th century the condition of the working class was genuinely poor in many places—thousands of people flooded into newly industrialised cities and ended up in cramped accommodation. The slums, as depicted by Dickens, were real—and while private property and free enterprise are fine, it hardly means every employer or businessman is some saint or a kindly old Dickensian gent. Hence the left was correct to say that the working class often lived in poor conditions—except they exaggerated and their proposed solution, socialism, would only immiserate the working class further and place a tyrannical bureaucracy over them.
The same process was repeated again over the nuclear arms issue. A nuclear war would genuinely be an event that could end advanced civilisation—when CND protested about the bomb, they did not lie about its potential effects. The lie was that unilateral disarmament would remove the risk (it would actually make it tempting to drop a bomb or two to induce Japanese-style surrender)—really, they just offered capitulation to the Soviets. Ideas like “nuclear winter” were exaggerations as to what a nuclear war would be like—again, the ploy is that a genuine problem is an either/or proposition: total societal transformation to deal with the problem…or armageddon—it’s a kind of false secular apocalypse.
This brings us to climate change; again, the left is correct to say it exists—as with “nuclear winter”, it fiddles with the data to exaggerate the threat, but the threat is real (even if not apocalyptic). When rightists say “it’s not happening at all”, they’re just being greedy or cannot give up industrial civilisation as stands and would rather wreck the planet instead. The problem will not be solved by socialism, as the left proposes—socialism is just their answer to everything, anyway (and it doesn’t work). Yet there is a problem—a problem not solved by “prosperity”.