And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.
A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely: The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.
For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.
But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.
39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change. Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH. When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%. A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough. Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough. 75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount. Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action.
90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production. The party of "Big Oil"? The Republicans? Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.
Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions. I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.