Dave Olsen is correct that every problem can be resolved by clearly defining its nature. He does not acknowledge that there are meaningful differences of opinions on the subject if we really have a problem and what are the causes. One side is very narrow minded in three aspects of the issue:

1. We are facing a catastrophic climate change soon.

2. It is caused by humans’ actions.

3. Governments need to take unprecedented measures to stop climate change, without any regard of the cost of it.

On the other side, many people doubt if the global warming is anything more than the regular climate fluctuations. The importance of a human factor is questioned. Lastly, if anything could or should be done, it would be done better by the private sector.

Summarizing, instead of calling into the open “to start thinking in a rational way, rather than making emotional and irrational demands,” David Olsen needs to ask climate alarmists, including many authors on Medium, as well as the Medium editors and leaders, to address the merit of arguments that people as myself bring into the debate. This includes:

https://medium.com/discourse/the-swindle-of-the-century-e6bf2ef81f4f

https://medium.com/discourse/it-is-not-about-climate-and-it-is-not-change-b7f1cf591050

https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/the-climate-is-changing-for-capitalism-1ac5dff2c49e

https://medium.com/@hak1010/with-a-hoe-against-the-sun-5de7b838c1fa

Unless my arguments are not addressed, we cannot talk about logical problem solving.