> At this stage everyone who doesn't accept the seriousness of climate collapse is either a liar (self-interested billionaires who want to make a shitload of mo

> At this stage everyone who doesn't accept the seriousness of climate collapse is either a liar (self-interested billionaires who want to make a shitload of money from it) or is clinging to denialism as part of a neurotic identity attachment. I don't think that's entirely true (or, at least, not entirely true in my personal experience). Various folks end up in bubbles of one sort or another where they just never are exposed to good arguments in favor of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Case in point: the Fox-watching great-uncle I visited a few weekends ago. We ended up having a good talk over some beers and ended with him in a more open-minded if not totally convinced position. One thing he mentioned that stuck with me was that he appreciated being treated like neither a child, a dupe or a provocateur, which is how he'd generally felt in the past when having stupid internet arguments on boomerbook about this topic. Treating everyone who's not on board with a particular social position (and yeah, I'd call this a social position at this point) like they're in that spot for the most nefarious reasons imaginable is a great way of moving them from a possible convert to a die-hard denialist. So, I'd say you may be right about engaging with online trolls, but expanding that logic to people you actually know (and therefore are more likely to be able to influence / are probably not paid shills) is overzealous and possibly counterproductive.