Even mildly deliberative moments like the Iowa caucuses can lead to surprising outcomes because a very different public (no longer hypothetical) is constituted by the caucus form.
I do think those are basically the right judgments about fossil fuels: they are awesome, we should be glad that they existed, and it really sucks that we’re going to be giving them up, but it’s time to take action. That said, it’s not clear why I can’t also feel:
Anger that providence does not supply as good a solution without the costs.
Resentment that those who have profited from fossil fuel extraction are willfully denying the evidence that we must change.
Frustration that scientific consensus does not bind more of my fellow citizens and their elected representatives.
Suspicion of the ways that our current interests cause us to downplay the risks and need for resignation and determination.
Those seem perfectly rational to me, too. And we might not be able to hold all those emotions in our mind at the same time, and thus we find that we’re unable to capture the state of perfectly neutral ambivalence that Caplan here suggests is a prerequisite for being considered rational.