We have a very clear picture of what the minimum we need to do is. There is a minimum we need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. My issue is we can't even d

We have a very clear picture of what the minimum we need to do is. There is a minimum we need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. My issue is we can't even decide to meet the minimum. It is a minimum for a reason. At some point we need to stop talking and do something. After 20+ years of trying to convince skeptics we are running out of time to be diplomatic. You don't sound like a denier. Or if you are you are reasonable enough to not state absolutes. I was OK being politically correct when the "debate" was just stalling progress. Now that the debate is not just stalling progress but actually reversing it, it is downright frightening. Your counter analogy doesn't hold. We only have one earth. And I think your argument is a straw man. No one is calling people who want to debate the solution deniers. I have only seen people called deniers who say that we don't even need a solution at all. Or worse, that warming is good.