1. Internet comments are a poor way of gauging sentiment; they tend to overrepresent cranky nay-sayers, who disproportionately benefit from venting. 2. If peop

1. Internet comments are a poor way of gauging sentiment; they tend to overrepresent cranky nay-sayers, who disproportionately benefit from venting. 2. If people would like to convince more people that it's actually a problem, consider that people have a tendency to recognize when what is touted as a Worthy Cause is actually being used as an excuse to obtain power or distribute political favors. Consider more public critiques of the efficacy of policy proposals -- this will also help you actually achieve your climate goals -- and have a lot more sympathy to the middle class who would suffer a lot more under an $8/gallon gas regime than a typical employed HNer would. Acknowledge the harm that high energy costs (including gas costs) would do to the economy, and consider ways to mitigate that harm by generally improving the business climate, regulatory regimes and tax regimes -- instead of writing it off or, worse, claiming that green energy is a magical job-creation mechanism (tip: spending more time effort and money to obtain the same amount of energy does not actually help the economy). Hold fewer events like the recent Peoples' Climate March in NYC (transparently a leftist platform using climate change as an excuse to protest capitalism writ large), and whatever you do do NOT use propaganda that features the statue of liberty mostly underwater (an accurate rendition of full 100% ice-melt from 33-degree warming but unrealistic as a near-term possibility and probably not the best image to lead with). Drop the caricatures which insult middle America as uncultured fatsoes driving around in SUVs, accurate or otherwise. Question what other ways in which political-party sentiment infiltrates climate-change talk.