[consteval]

There are, and they've been in practice for many decades.

However, I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they have a functional brain. Therefore, I conclude if someone "doesn't believe" in climate change, that is a choice. Not a matter of ignorance.

I do not pity you enough to spit in your face with hand-holding and euphemisms. There is a deliberate choice and I'll treat you as such.

[mistermann]

Is imagining shortcomings on my behalf and then categorizing them as factual to use as evidence in an argument a part of these superior approaches you mention?

If I was to do the same to you, would you not protest?

[consteval]

I'm not imagining a shortcoming, rather I'm doing the opposite. I'm assuming you've done the proper research around climate change so I'm not going to patronize you with it. Therefore, I conclude you are not ignorant, you're willfully contrarian.

If you interpret that as a worse outcome, here's a thought: stop being willfully contrarian. Sometimes the most popular and most researched opinion is correct. You gain nothing by being contrarian.

Being skeptical is good. Being skeptical means you require a wealth of evidence to believe something. Well, if you don't believe in climate change, you're NOT skeptical - you're just an obnoxious contrarian. Because we have a wealth of evidence and I'm assuming you've reviewed it.