Evaluating Arguments on Climate Change Action

In the debate on climate change, a group of environmental scientists presented findings indicating that immediate action is essential to mitigate catastrophic effects. They argue that delaying action could lead to irreversible damage, citing instances of extreme weather that have already caused severe economic and social disruption. Conversely, a coalition of economists suggests that the costs of immediate action would outweigh the potential benefits, asserting that gradual adjustments would be more economically viable without disrupting current industries.

The economists further argue that innovation and technology advancements over time will produce more effective solutions than immediate measures. They claim that the market should dictate the pace of change and that consumers will gravitate toward greener alternatives when they become financially attractive.

Critics of the economists' position argue that reliance on the market alone ignores the urgency of the climate crisis and could result in catastrophic consequences for future generations. They believe that economic arguments should not outweigh the scientific consensus on the necessity of addressing climate change swiftly.

Based on the arguments presented, which point does NOT effectively support the environmental scientists' case?