I have been pondering this problem you pose in the last paragraph for a long time.

My sense is that it can't be the so-called greens that frame the discussion, at least not in the U.S.

Up til now, "greens" have been framing the discussion, and many on the right have managed to broadly paint "greens" with a liberal, leftist, communist, "Earth before people" paintbrush, and for all intents and purposes, that view seems to have stuck with the general public, at least on the surface.

For instance, take renewable energy.  Greens have been flogging it since the '70's, and where have we gotten? 5% non-hydro renewable penetration? And if you ask a "green" why it hasn't improved? Well, as you said, "People need more facts!"  

What's needed is a realization that climate change goes way beyond environment.  This isn't an environmental problem, per se.  The "environment" will be just fine, at least on a long enough timeline (if that timeline is on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years).

This is a human problem, and we as a society have to deal with it.  So that means many more of society's players besides the "greens" need to take up the cause.  We need doctors and public health specialists thinking about the health impacts, teachers and professors thinking about how to integrate this into their educational mission, business people thinking about the opportunities to profit on reducing emissions, planners thinking about mitigation, etc.

In short, like you say, we need the people that we in American society see as being solutions-oriented stepping up to lead on this.  And unfortunately, my sense is that much of the public sees "greens" as obstructionist, not solutions-oriented.

Would love to hear responses.

RH

The most skillful thing the GW opponents have done is bind up the idea that responses to GW must be large and devastating to the US economy.

In a way it's jujitsu, because some environmentalists (etc.) are ready to do very large and transforming changes.

Unfortunately that large-changes binding makes it a harder question ("global warming, yes or no?") for the population.  It cannot slide under their doorstep as compact fluorescent lights and a more efficient heater.

I suspect that in Europe (etc.) GW response was made to appear more incremental, and without the single "trillion dollar price tag" that was thrown around here.

IMO, the way to make GW more acceptable to the population is to break the big price tag association, by naming the easy first steps.  Do exactly what the foes do not want you to do ... slide it in under the door.

Debating global climate change is a red herring.

Does anyone remember the old standby answer from the pro-corporatist faction?  "More study".

We do not hear the president and his friends parroting that talking point anymore.  ("more study! rwooark.  more study! Bushie wanna cracker....)

The last global climate change skeptic I encountered was told to find someone else to debate it, in the face of melting ice caps and glaciers I have moved on to what is the best way to alleviate it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

You're right. Global warming is a human problem and here in the US it's being presented as an environmental problem. We're talking about the extinction of polar bears by the end of the century but not the extinction of humans. I mean really, by the end of the century we will have lost huge amounts of coastline, and numerous islands around the world. A friend of mine who used to work with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in DC and then went to the EPA, used to go on and on about all the toxics buried along the southeast coast how devastating it will be when the ocean rises and all these poisons are released into the ocean. The weather changes will be devastating. Where we grow food, where we live and how -- everything is up for grabs with the latest picture scientists and researchers painted for us on even the mainstream media over the past few days. And when 60 Minutes ended their segment on climate change this past Sunday with something like, "No matter what we do, there is no stopping it." my heart sank. This is not what people need to hear. What we need to hear are options. We need to know where our energy will make the most difference so we can act.We need to be empowered in the face of this, not led to believe that nothing we do matters so we might just as well continue with the status quo.

People know about climate change. What they don't know is what they can do about it. The US government isn't doing anything except threatening officials who dare to tell us the truth. Some states are beginning to respond but there isn't much public information. And at the community level, which is where we really need to be coming together to discuss the situation and create options and scenarios, very little is happening unless you live in a pretty progressive place.

My concerns with global warming are personal. I love the Earth in general and the beauty of the place where I live and grew up in particular. I live in Maine and I love the cold and snow (which we got precious little of this year -- a glimpse of the not-too-distant future). I love the seasons and my garden. I love the maple trees and fall foliage and maple syrup and making snow men. I grew up with these things. The thought that one day this place that I know and love will be utterly changed, much of it dead because species will not be able to adapt quickly enough to the changes to survive is devastating to me. I have shed numerous tears over it and I know I will again. I grieve for the loss of what we now have, what most people take for granted. It's hard to imagine the world of the future, but I think we need to because it's the only way we'll be spurred to take the kind of drastic action necessary. We need to describe climate change in human terms, create various scenarios based on current research and current situations, and humanize them. We need people to understand we're not just talking 100 years from now, that climate change is a process, that it's happening right now, faster than anyone could have guessed, and that living through these times (and not all of us will survive) will be hard and painful. Our gadgets and creature comforts will not save us -- they will not even work.
  The Earth will survive. Life will survive. Perhaps humans will survive, who knows? But it will be a very different world, and we may be starting from scratch.
   That said, I do believe we have the ability and power to change things for the better. The worst-case scenario doesn't have to come to be. It's just that there's no guarantee that it won't.