> I've given up on changing their minds. No matter how deep I analyze their data and point out the flaws, they won't budge an inch. I think it's easy to oversi

> I've given up on changing their minds. No matter how deep I analyze their data and point out the flaws, they won't budge an inch. I think it's easy to oversimplify their views. There's a pretty good scale of belief that some would call "denial" that isn't quite that. 1. Is it because they distrust the people talking about it? Have those people been wrong previously? 2. Is it because they distrust the proposed solutions to it? Do they feel there is an ulterior agenda behind those solutions? Or do they simply feel the proposed solutions are too expensive and unreasonable [1]? 3. Is it because they distrust the idea that humans cause climate change, not just nature? 4. Do they feel that it is an important issue; but believe it is a much lower priority issue than solving food, housing, education, safety, and other issues [2]? And so forth. I think that very often; it is distrust of the people talking about it more than the idea. Remember that the World Economic Forum talks about climate change, but also bragged about how "You will own nothing, and be happy" which was the biggest self-own of the millennium. There aren't many people I run into who say "there is no climate change, period," but there are plenty who think that it's exaggerated, meant to benefit a political cause, meant to change social behavior to benefit somebody's agenda, etc. I can't say that is 100% unwarranted. Claiming "the world is going to end unless we do my solution X" is kind of like using vinegar to attract flies. [1] And while I'm on the "unreasonable," it's vague but extremely hard to change and quantify. We could theoretically end child molestation if we had cameras in every room of every house; but that's not reasonable even if you could scientifically prove it to be effective. We could theoretically end illiteracy if we locked every child in a room with a book 24/7 until they learned to read, but that's not reasonable even if you could scientifically prove it to be effective. They could easily just feel that the climate change "solutions," regardless of the science, even if they are effective, just aren't at their level of reasonable. The reasons for that could be as different and varied as grains of sand on a seashore. [2] California doesn't do themselves any favors when they scream about climate change while having severe homelessness, housing affordability, high taxation, and other issues that affect people personally on a day-to-day level. In my personal opinion, people would be much more sympathetic to solving climate change if they had their other ducks in a row. You can't convince people to think about the future if the present is a mess. You can't convince somebody to save 20% of their income for retirement when they've got $20K in credit card debt.