I'm not sure there is such a thing, but it's probably good to know what your objective is. In this contentious thread, perspectives ran the gamut. One commenter observed:
As difficult it is in this era of "Tea Baggers vs Marxists", "Denialists vs. Warmistas", "Conservatards vs. Mann-Made Glo-bull Warmists" or whatever other dumbass portmanteaus each side uses, I -perhaps naively- believe in good faith that at their core each side has the same motive: to promulgate policy and philosophy that best promotes human flourishing in the coming decades. Yes there is a chasm between the two, a fundamental cultural dissonance, but I believe the core intent is the same. No matter how stupid you think -or know- the other side is, the fact of the matter is we live in a democracy and by definition that means accepting a plurality of viewpoints and working within that cacophony to persuade and build consensus.
Then again, others seem to think that opponents can be worn down:
Blood and vitriol is the only way to burn out the fools.
Might this one be the most realistic, at least from the pro-AGW perspective?
An achievable objective is to stop the contagion from spreading, not to convert the deluded and/or dishonest.
If so, how would that be done? And who is your target audience if they do not include the "deluded" and/or "dishonest"?
