If it's only about the science, and the science has been settled for a decade, why do we seem to be getting nowhere? Might there be more than science involved?

> Seems some people simply reject that because the commonly proposed next steps go against their ideology.

It may seem that way, and to some degree it almost certainly is, but what if that isn't an accurate characterization of how it actually is? Might it be worthwhile to consider applying the same intellectual rigor that climate scientists use to the public psychology/discourse aspect of this problem, or is that somehow denialist, or something else? The suggestion always receives downvotes, I'd love to know why.