@Lou, the problem with zeal is not the motivation it gives people for change, but the issue that it can blind people into uncritical support. It allows for fads to rise. It allows for wrong things being done for right reasons.
Deniers mostly are not ready to be convinced. so its not a thing worth wasting much time about. However many in the middle, and I think that is still the majority, need to realize that this is too important to not engage with it to some extent. Those people can still be reached.
In time the deniers will be convinced if the majority of the climate science and forecasts are accurate. There will be no alternative. That however is not a future we want, because to get there means so much damage is already done to the planet that things will never be the same again. If some of the claims being made, such as vast methane release from the ocean floor, are properly verified then I think that, whatever the view is on the cause, it has to be considered that irreversible climate change is already here. The natural world can reverse these things, but it takes millennia or longer, even geological ages.
One thing that people often do not realize is that the world used to be much much hotter than it is now. Some degree of warming is tolerable to the ecosphere, but not without extinctions and evolutionary changes. For humanity that means dire times.
Solar activity has been closely measured. Claims that solar activity might be causing it seem unfounded. There are not many viable alternatives to human action.
Yet even the most ardent scientific reports put the likelihood of human induced global warming as only about 85%, though that figure is probably out of date as I have been following medical science not climate science. Given the magnitude of the potential disaster, and long term or permanent decline in economic growth and wealth, an 85% risk strongly indicates we need an insurance policy. Indeed, no insurer would accept this degree of risk, its calamitous. We have to find ways to mitigate possible downsides.
If some of the claims are to be believed, and I want to again cite large scale methane release, then irreversible change is here. We cannot reverse it. We might be able to slow it some. This is making some scientists very unhappy.
Personally I want to see more and better science. We are spending a lot on research, but the potential magnitude of the issue means we should be spending even more. I think we should abandon fossil fuels anyway, as soon as we can. Large carbon sources are far too valuable to the world to go up in flame. Future industry may need them for other uses.
I do not want to get into other possible global disasters heading our way, but I do want to make one final comment on global warming. If such a thing is occurring (and not natural climate change) then we need to be aware that temperature is not the greatest indicator of heat at all times. Heat and temperature are related but not the same. Many frozen substances, from clathrate to sub zero ice, can absorb a lot of heat without a phase change, and indeed these form a buffer that prevents increased atmospheric temperature. Should the ice all melt, the clathrates all warm, then that buffer will be gone and along with other issues like decreased albedo and increased greenhouse gases (including methane) this will rapidly accelerate temperature change. It would not be a steady increase. Should that happen all the statistical predictions being made would be inappropriate. So, in other words, heat might be a steady increase, but temperature isn't.