But these debates are never about facts anyway. There will never be a yes/no debate about whether or not it's raining. There will be a debate about whether cli

But these debates are never about facts anyway. There will never be a yes/no debate about whether or not it's raining. There will be a debate about whether climate change is going to cause huge problems and therefore mitigation measures are needed - some of which may lead to higher taxes. For some people. Objectively the answer to the first part of that question is "yes". At this point there is no plausible argument to be made for any other position. Denying it makes as much sense as claiming that it's not raining when it is. But interest groups who are horrified by the second part can use a standard repertoire of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) techniques to persuade less educated voters that it's not true., And also that they are being victimised by the people who are saying it is. Which is why public debates aren't about facts or evidence. They're about "Who is the victim - and is it going to be you?" Once that frame has been established it's very difficult to break out of it, because the debate is neither adult nor rational. And this is the frame in which public debate has operated in the US since at least the 50s, and probably longer. Which is not to deny that some people are victimised by others, but to point out that it's very easy for those who are perpetrators to claim victimhood too - and to do it convincingly, even when it's nonsense, by using FUD, lies, and other rhetorical tricks in bad faith. Trying to push for ground truth and pointing out logical fallacies will do less than expected to prevent that, because the rhetorical games that are being played operate on a different level.