[Thnboi666]

in which case how do we prove this to be real beyond doubt?

what do we do when people treat their opposition as faith, i.e. belief despite lack of evidence.

for some people it will never be real. what do we do about that? is that a legitimate thing to take into account? does that faith mean we cannot act as though climate change is largely human-driven?

[philh]

Again, this is not a reply to me.

You don't wait until you've proven it beyond doubt. But you say "this is our best model, we're pretty confident it's right in the essentials, and we're going to act on it but remain open to being wrong; here are our policy proposals". You don't say "this is our best model, and here are our policy proposals based on it, but even if our model is wrong we would make the same proposals anyway".

I have no particular insights into the other questions.

[Thnboi666]

""this is our best model, we're pretty confident it's right in the essentials"

'what do you mean you don't know, you're not sure? you could be wrong?!'

that's how people see that. that's why climate science needs to give concrete beyond doubt proof. anything less and people ignore it.

[philh]

Another thing people say is: "the science is fraudulent, any competing evidence gets buried for disagreeing with the establishment".

You are not helping with that.