People love to group ideas based on political consensus. It enables them to develop a world view using the appeal-to-majority rhetorical trick. It’s an easy way to construct one’s ethos, but it relies on unrelated tenets to draw a conclusion that cannot logically be drawn from them. It also groups people into two opposing factions.

If anti-fiat … then anti-all government … then anti-vaccine … then anti climate worry … then anti …

One does not derive from another, so a grouping of likes or dislikes is fallacious.

Unrelated ideas need to be considered independently and using the information provided to us by the smartest people in the field. The people who decline to consider the existence or the implications of short-term elevations in CO2 and CH4 either have something to sell, or they have been sold on a mythical relationship between that message and other beliefs.