> No, you are absolutely wrong that things never change.

Actually, I'm not "absolutely wrong". I asked a question: "Does anything ever change?"

> The survey data shows that the public has been steadily increasing its acceptance of the realities of global climate change and what needs to be done about it.

Do surveys control actions and government policy, and if so, to what degree?

> ...you should be looking at how it is that conventional arguments for realities sometimes works

Oh I do, all the time. As far as I can tell, the conventional arguments being used don't work very well, especially when it comes to producing significant changes in net(!) outcome.

> Also, the problem with focusing on first getting people to accept what the psychological and neurological science is that people's psychology and neurology will(!) cause them to reject the scientific truths about the psychology and neurology.

Is that so. Upon what is this prediction of the future based? A popular meme, or actual conclusive evidence, that is directly related to psychological and neurological science, and has demonstrable predictive power?

> As far as having a strong view on what other people are thinking, everyone does that all the time, including you. For instance, when someone tells you they believe something, you make a judgement as to whether or not they are telling the truth. You do it because you are not crazy.

What you've written here is true. But the difference between myself and most other people, at least based on my observations, seems to be that I take a consciously deliberate, disciplined approach to distinguishing between "facts" and heuristic predictions - both when thinking, and when speaking/writing (broadcasting ideas into the minds of other people).

> Traditionally people who disbelieved in global climate change would present arguments it is not occurring (or not dangerous). In the last year or so, this has pretty much stopped, at least in forums like HN, and instead people have presented the argument that renewables are bad for the environment (which is in fact not true).

Yes, some people have done that ("presented the argument...") I imagine. Some people have done other things as well. Lots of things occur in the world. Why they occur, and what conclusions an individual should draw (and rebroadcast, often as "fact") from the subsets of occurrences that he is aware of is where it gets complicated.

Biomass energy (aka: wood) is renewable. Do you not consider burning wood to be bad for the environment, at the very least in the sense that it gaining a higher share in clever statistical reporting can give the general public a false sense of security?

> I assume the reason for this change is that the people who disbelieve in global climate change have realized they can't win the battle arguing directly and have switched to an indirect approach.

Is this a safe assumption? Is the assumption correct? How would you know?

Is it possible that the change in your observations of beliefs isn't directly proportional to the actual underlying existence of beliefs? For example, might censorship play a role in this? Have there been any instances where individuals who don't hold the proper beliefs are banned or rate-limited on popular forums? The answer to this is yes, because I have been the "victim" of this many times. So now the question is: to what degree is this happening? How would we even know? One can certainly form conclusions based on guessing, as you have done above, but is your guess correct?

And banning is just one possible alternate cause. What if people got tired of the increasingly ideological and authoritarian culture in mainstream forums and have voted with their feet, going somewhere else entirely where there is either less ideology, or an ideology that is more to their liking? If this is what is happening (and it is, but to an unknown degree), now people who like to opine about the behaviors and inner thoughts of others don't even have that raw material to work with anymore, because it is completely off your radar.

Furthermore, since you seem to have some expertise in psychology: do you ever consider the consequences of millions of people making (and broadcasting in the media, both social media, but also formal mainstream media) negative statements about the thoughts and behavior of groups of people? Do you ever consider how this affects the psyche of people who are denigrated on a daily basis, and how that may alter their future behavior, such as who they might vote for in an election?

Perhaps you "think" (heuristically predict) that we "shouldn't have to" worry about such things, or that this "isn't" a problem. But once again: upon what is that prediction based? And, is the prediction accurate? How would you know?

The human mind provides the holder a crystal clear, ultra high definition impression that they know what is going on in the world, but this impression is an elaborate illusion. That is a fact.

So instead of "lecturing" me that we are on the right course, no adjustments or deeper thinking required, I recommend you think a bit more deeply about what is going on here on planet Earth, because your religion's current assessment seems rather off the mark to me, and our lack of progress on climate change seems to confirm that fairly well.