Surely you must see the difference between the hypothetical destruction of an all out nuclear war and the very real existing conditions of the climate emergency

Surely you must see the difference between the hypothetical destruction of an all out nuclear war and the very real existing conditions of the climate emergency. But regardless, I love this analogy. Because the alarmist hyperbole actually worked. In the 1980s we had over 70,000 nuclear bombs. People called for disarmaments and we got several bilateral agreements on top of the existing non-proliferation treaty. Today we have just over 13,000 bombs. Not a total success, but a success nonetheless. (An aside. 92 countries have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, meaning alarmist rhetoric has convinced as many governments to totally eliminate this existential threat). Comparing this to climate actions is apt because this is what people are asking for and what climate scientists are recommending. International agreements comming to eliminate this threat. In 1997 (before Inconvenient Truth) such an agreement was signed with support from the Clinton administration, the congress, and the general public. However it failed to ratify because the senite had "concerns". Perhaps the rhetoric at the time wasn't alarmist enough. And some senators were allowed to serve the oil lobby and delay action for another 3 decades. As a result now we are all going to die!