Oh I know, but let's say you didn't want to do anything about climate change and you knew that the kind of people who do: * Value moral superiority and "being

Oh I know, but let's say you didn't want to do anything about climate change and you knew that the kind of people who do: * Value moral superiority and "being right" over results. * Broadly think that people who categorically disagree with them are stupid and just need to be educated about the truth. * Believe that the mere existence of climate change implies that we have to do everything they say to combat it. * As a group are largely incapable of knowing when they're being put on and baited. So say hypothetically you "deny climate change." But of course you don't outright deny it, you say that there's no evidence. The discussion shifts away from what the proper response to climate change is to whether it even exists. In public discussions you can dismiss any argument with "well it doesn't even exist." They will then proceed to spinlock boiling the oceans with the energy expenditure trying to prove it exists— "surely this next piece of evidence will be undeniable and I'll have them cornered!" But that couldn't possibly work, right?