If climate hawks (see, I can play along) weren't so stubborn, they'd listen to people like Paul Kelly:
The world knows all about the stated dangers to climate. It has heard the projections and in large part accepted the science. Every government, every school from kindergarten through university, most newspapers and magazines and media outlets subscribe. Despite that, the world has rejected the global/state approach of mitigation through tax or penalty. Since Copenhagen the climate concerned have been slow to face this reality. As someone who has seen the necessity of energy transformation for far longer than climate has been an issue, let me assure the climate concerned. There is an overwhelming mass of people who share your goal of fossil free energy, but for other reasons. Even though you've very largely won the climate debate, your approach to the goal is irrevocably blocked. No further discussion of the science can change that. The goal, however, is still attainable. If you stop thinking in terms of climate, you will find approaches that can be implemented and have a chance for success. The truly concerned will ask how best to achieve energy transformation if climate were not an issue at all?
Paul's been arguing this to no avail over at Stoat's and other climate concerned blogs for a while. He's articulate, unfailingly civil, and pretty much ignored. In lieu of this, here's a few post-midterm predictions you can bank on: Climate hawks will remain fiercely protective of their turf. They will feast on their new (Republican) enemies. They will continue preening. Meanwhile, their habitat will become increasingly less favorable to their long-term survival. And if the worst comes to pass, at least they can say they went out fighting.