[librvf]

This is not the right way to look at the issue. If the low-level data itself can not be made any more convincing, the only real option is to ignore staunch deniers. The right way to look at this, given the way it has been politicized, is to look from the perspective of any proposed policy change. And then for each given change, be sure that the evidence and arguments are solid at all levels of the discussion. That is:

1. The observed climate data is valid and complete.

2. The predictive models are reliable and sufficiently comprehensive and objective.

3. Specific problems are clearly articulated.

4. Proposed policies will solve the clearly articulated problems.

5. The proposed solution is realistic to implement worldwide, wont' have any unexpected side-effects, and won't cause worse problems than the problems it's solving. Negative side-effects should be acknowledged and addressed as best as possible.

While I have seen arguments that at least touch on most of those points, it's very difficult to arrive at level 5 and not have ANY room for mistakes or legitimate differences of opinion and perspective. So while it's nice to bitch and moan about the wild conspiracy theorists challenging the facts established at the lowest level, the opposition is just as justified bitching and moaning about all the political actors who have already decided what solution they want, and are just doing whatever they can to make sure that solution becomes policy, no matter the consequences.

[moultano]

What's frustrating is that lots of people will superficially disagree at 5 and seem reasonable, but if you dig a little deeper, they actually disagree at 1 and you are wasting your time.

It's unfortunately my prior at this point. The people with uninformed objections at 1 are a much larger group than people who agree with 1:n-1 and can have a nuanced discussion of n.

[librvf]

The problem is that people at level 1 are currency for the people who disagree at level 5. High-level partisans on both sides rely on propaganda and rhetoric to sway the lowest common denominator for support. Most of those people are not making up their minds about what to believe based on the scientific validity of the evidence. They're simply going with their gut.