Your unstated assertion here is that we don't actually need to try to mitigate global warming and that it's merely a moral question, or like some culture war tempest-in-a-teapot. We need to mitigate global warming. That's a need we have to fulfill. It's the "right" thing to do for that very reason. Creating a strawman by saying 'haha, you think we should ignore that because it's the "right" thing to do' suggests that it's the "right thing to do" in the same way that it's the "right" thing to put toilet paper with the free end facing the room rather than facing the wall, rather than a slow-moving catastrophe that will kill billions through crop failures.

I believe the point is that there is more than one type of renewable energy. Using the shortcomings of one under certain circumstances as an excuse to pursue nonrenewable energy at the expense of the long-term consequences of nonrenewable energy is shortsighted.

It should also be noted that nonrenewable energy sources also face supply issues. If anything, the issue is worse for nonrenewable energy in the long term since scarcity can only increase with time. Exploration and more intensive extraction techniques only postpone the exhaustion of resources while increasing costs.

(I also find it somewhat ironic that the burning of carbon would most likely intensify the problem in the long run by increasing energy demands and decreasing the effectiveness of renewables.)

Fossil fuels are failing our very immediate need to stabilize climate change and survive for the next century. So yes, we should be considering other options, even if they’re not perfect.

Yes, the religion requires intellectual sacrifice.