This seems to imply that scientists should spend a lot more time talking science and simply ignoring the deniers. Any information repeated enough starts to feel normal. All the lists of ways to argue with climate deniers point-by-point will only work if people are paying careful attention. Maybe starting at the science march on earthday, every month could have a science-focused theme around climate (that is far from and silent on politics): Why is Venus so hot? Why predicting storms is difficult but predicting the total energy of the earth is more straightforward. Who first predicted global warming and how did they know? Global warming is science, and science is falsifiable: what would disprove it on a historical continuum— measuring CO2 in the atmosphere, measuring heat-as-light reaching the earth’s surface, measuring ocean and air temperatures together, looking for negative feedback loops (real science, some of which wasn’t known when the hypotheses first came out, ignore denier garbage). What tools measure the spectrum from the sun that reaches the earth? etc.
Could we echo each other until one more piece of scientific knowledge is available for anyone listening, until by the end of the year a few more million people (maybe including some children of congresspersons) were literate about the topic, not just quoting the 97% agreement but having a sense of how that came about, able to call some of the bs without relying on experts.