The author is correct in his general thesis, but actually highlights the ridiculous mentality of why climate activism only appeals to one end of the political spectrum. A few examples:

Yet that is the collective reaction of our species to the warnings that we are frying our planet.

Yes, less than one degree over a century is "frying our planet."

Plenty of news is depressing – Isis, child abuse, austerity – but a world rendered uninhabitable to human beings?

I wonder if he's actually ever spoken to a climate scientist.

Climate catastrophe soon occupies the same psychological space we reserve for death itself...

There's the "C" for those wondering why people here use the term CAGW.

This argument, like any political argument, won’t be won with data and graphs but with a narrative. It has to address our hearts, not our heads.

Yeah, activists have tried that. Whereas data engenders discussion, emotional appeals result in eyerolls and snickers.

We can’t burn the coal, oil and gas that’s in the ground without torching our precious planet, so let’s keep it in the ground.

He clearly hasn't looked at the amount of fossil fuels that are actually economically extractable, nor has he ever looked at the debate around ECS.

Next, the case for the climate has to be at least as much about remedy as diagnosis. If climate campaigners are heard as constant purveyors of gloom, they won’t be heeded.

He got one right.

In this regard Naomi Klein’s book, This Changes Everything, is a good example of how it should be done, offering a solution to every problem.

Wow. So close. I wonder if he's actually read her book. Her "solutions" are to overthrow national governments starting the day her book hit the shelves.

If the threat to our planet is a preoccupation confined to only one half of the political spectrum, meaningful action will never come.

He got another right. Here's a suggestion for those who want to include a larger share of the political spectrum in a cause. Stop berating them. Stop using terms like "deniers," that are a thinly veiled reference to Holocaust deniers. Stop implying they are stupid with papers about conspiracy ideation.

In sum, the author is so steeped in the rhetoric of the left that he has zero chance of seeing his dream of broad support fulfilled without first looking in the mirror.