I understand the point of the article and I agree that it is right and proper for those in a position to act, to make choices and undertake actions that are likely to be effective in mitigating if not negating the possible damaging of the biosphere. Would the author accept my position, or have I hedged my words and responded too cautiously for his comfort? You see, I was brought up in a Western, enlightened tradition in which I was taught (and willingly learned) that those who profess to know the truth (authors, professors, religious leaders, bosses etc.) should be questioned and their words analyzed closely. If, from such education, I have learned to question climate change doubters, is it not right also that I should question climate change advocates? The author seems unready to accept my equivocation (with his casual dismissal of “deniers” and smug analogical reference to invaders from space) and I am therefore unwilling to join his crusade. I will work on my own (purchasing smaller cars, buying commodities with a minimum of packaging, etc. etc.) and continue to not worry whether I have satisfied the revolutionary fervor of some of the advocates, or the reactionary skepticism of some of the doubters.