Do you accept the reality of global warming? If not, we have nothing to talk about. Flat earthers and Galileans are irreconcilable.

But if you accept global warming, what other explanation can you present for the continued inaction of our government?

Not OP, but I think people in general are predisposed to:

1. Not believe in things they can’t see

2. Especially when it is convenient not to.

The reasoning goes “if global warming were true, we’d have to change a lot of things. I don’t want to change things. It can’t be true”.

There’s also a tendency to believe that slow moving things can’t possibly cause big changes. The reasoning goes: “The earth has always seemed basically similar, so why would it change”

This reasonong doesn’t happen at a conscious level, it’s more of an impulse that guides what beliefs people let in, and don’t. What rationalizations they use, etc.

If it were a conspiracy of elites, you’d see mass support for things like carbon taxes. Instead, they’re unpopular.

Now, you could argue that some rich elites have used propaganda campaigns to convince people global warming is false. I think this is correct, but I also think these propaganda campaigns were aided by what people want to believe.

As for governments: they can’t undertake politically unpopular actions. They’ll get voted out.

So, we're in agreement about the two most important points.

1. Global warming is real. (Duh.)

2. Political contributions from the fabulously wealthy are buying government inaction.

Now, it may be that, like many on HN, you value inequality and adamantly support the "free speech" rights of the fabulously wealthy few to dominate the U.S. political system through unlimited political contributions. But global warming becomes harder and harder to deny with each passing year. Maybe it will take the loss of the entire Florida peninsula, but eventually all but the most hardcore will have to face reality.

Even if you're not reachable, eventually enough others will be reachable.

You didn't address my argument at all: that a bunch of regular people will resisit practical measures to stop global warming because those measures are painful and the reality of the long harm from climate change seems inconceivable.

You seem to be viewing this as only propaganda driven.

While unpleasant truths require thoughtful presentation (like any argument), I am not so filled with contempt for the opposition that I believe 100% of them are are 100% irrational and 100% unreachable. Especially not when billions are being lost through inundated real estate.

I don't think you're being disingenuous, but your argument is essentially "concern trolling": you agree with the substance but express concern that others may not. It is folly to be paralyzed in the face of such an argument: that's abandoning a won position to your interlocutor.

No, that's not what I said at all. My argument was more along the lines of "it's hard to get a man to understand what his salary requires him not to understand".

I'm saying that even though climate change is disastrous collectively, it's currently generally in an individual's interest to burn carbon. And so a fair chunk of people will have great difficulty even understanding that this burning is terribly bad for the planet and for us collectively.

Even absent propaganda we would have this problem. Now, if society were all united in sending a message I'm sure more people would be in favour of emissions reduction. But you're treating the issue as only caused by propaganda.