[lumberjack]

You can make persuasive arguments that might not appeal to the scientifically literate rationalist, but will appeal to the somebody who is just using very crude heuristics and might have ended up believing in a conspiracy theory.

For example regarding climate change: you can construct an argument around the ridiculous idea that scientists are somehow taking on the worldwide fossil fuel industries, and the most powerful and ruthless countries on earth, including the US, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, and they are doing this because by inventing a lie about the earth warming up. The very lopsided power dynamics in this scenario expose the conspiracy theory for the farce that it is.

[Rury]

Yes, you can make different arguments. The point I'm making is that it's ultimately upon them to decide what to believe in. They may or may not accept your alternative argument as convincing. Everyone ultimately chooses what they believe and trust in as evidence. There is no way around this, so you cannot force anyone to accept something. But yes, you can keep trying by presenting different arguments/evidence...