"It's worse than we thought." Sound familiar?

[GliderGuider]

58. There are a number of fundamental problems with your argument.

The Clean Air Act involved only one nation, and didn't require changes to the primary driving force of the economy.
The Montreal Protocol involved a demonstrated, accepted risk, and required changes to the use of one class of products for which replacements were readily available, and required no changes to global infrastructure.

Neither of these situations apply to fossil fuel use. It is the lifeblood of the global economy; replacements are not available; if replacements do become available it will require changes to global energy infrastructure; nations see a competitive advantage in not agreeing to restrictions or changes, and have a sovereign right to refuse;

Plus there there is still enough imprecision in the science to allow politicians to take a "wait and see" attitude. Hell, even someone like you, who claims to get it, steadfastly refuses to allow worst-case scenarios into the conversation and urges caution in accepting dire projections. The politicians just love people with that attitude - they become respected environmental advisers.