This is the rub. Nobody ever wants to discuss this part of it, they just want to focus on the "deniers" because they want an imaginary enemy to blame their fail

This is the rub. Nobody ever wants to discuss this part of it, they just want to focus on the "deniers" because they want an imaginary enemy to blame their failures on. "Deniers" aren't standing in the way of this. Even in the countries with the highest levels of deniers, they are under 20% of the population. America it's about 13%, and the people who want to do more to combat climate change is 60-70%. Far far less popular agenda gets shoved through all the time by politicians, it's never stopped them before. But somehow in this one instance, when politicians attempt to deal with what they call the greatest problem ever to face humanity, the arch-enemy "dumb redneck unemployed coal miner" has used their vast network of power and influence to put a stop to it. They couldn't stop their Robert E Lee statues from being torn down by unruly mobs, but they'll go toe to toe with the Bilderberg Group? Get real. It's just so hilariously stupid I can't understand why people don't see through it. Utter rubbish. The failure rests 100% on the shoulders of the politicians, corporations, and international groups who have been claiming they will do something about it while clearly never having any intention to solve the problem. And while we are on the subject of popular opinion, a huge amount of damage has been done by hypocrite politicians and elites. I don't care if the private jets they use to fly around the world and their huge electricity-guzzling mansions "don't emit much in the scheme of things", what people hate more than anything else is hypocrisy and unfairness. Particularly when the commoners are admonished if they claim their contribution or their country's contribution is insignificant in the scheme of things, because "everyone has to sacrifice because we're all in it together". I bet that 13% would be 5% and the 30% would be 10% if it wasn't for the entitled, wasteful, hypocritical and hateful behavior and rhetoric from these people -- our "betters" -- who have proclaimed themselves to be in charge of solving this problem. And what we should be discussing is not stuck on the idiotic yes/no whether it's a problem and whether we should do something about it. That is done. The popular mandate for this has existed almost globally but certainly throughout the west for 20 years or more. What we should be talking about is having a real debate and ask difficult questions about the proposed solutions that are not well explained to the public. We should ask why countries with high emissions intensity of production are getting concessions. That's an incentive to increase emissions of production. We should ask why talk about per-capita concessions have so much weight, when that is a good incentive for countries to increase populations and reduce living standards for their people.