I suppose that for the people actively denying climate change it doesn't matter, actually: it's probably more effective to deny whatever is easiest to deny at a

I suppose that for the people actively denying climate change it doesn't matter, actually: it's probably more effective to deny whatever is easiest to deny at any given time. They must only practise the denial because making changes to reduce even a potential climate change does cost money, takes away privileges and benefits gained earlier, and threatens to change their way of living. And they don't want that. If scientists were saying that there's a slight chance for an irreversible climate change to take place in the next 30-100 years, and it would be wise to do X, Y, and Z now in order to prevent or at least lessen the change, and X, Y, and Z can be done at a minimal cost (or paid by "someone else"), and X, Y, and Z will not change their lives except to ensure they won't be affected much by the potential climate change, then I could imagine no sane person would object to X, Y, and Z nor try to deny the possibility of the climate change itself. Those who are anti-change are just willing to bet on the possibility that nothing drastic will eventually happen in order to spare themselves from changing their lives now, against a deadlier option that would spare the lives of future generations sometimes later. To do that, they must challenge the basic premises of the climate change itself. The most effective way to do that is to pick the lowest hanging fruit in the tree of facts and concoct reasons why the facts aren't actually true. Surely, proving one thing undeniably and absolutely correct would just cause them to pick another fact. They're not interested in why climate change is not happening in particular as long as they can keep arguing so that they can execute their agenda of not having to change anything in their lives.