Kudos to you for your patience in posting this sort of thing. I think the "evidence vs yelling" debate is not where the action is. I would prefer to leave the fringe conspiracists to their echo chamber.
I think we need to convince "moderates" that we are now facing worse outcomes, and much sooner than has been predicted. Basically the sort of apocalyptic disasters we were warned of by the end of the century are now on target to happen much sooner. The energy transition is too late, too slow. We need to switch off coal, oil and gas now, before renewables are ready to replace them. The transition is taking too long and the extra emissions in that time will be deadly. It will be far worse than the economic effects of immediate energy austerity.
I don't think it will be possible, politically, to achieve that switch-off. It will only happen AFTER the disasters ramp up considerably. In that case, the best course of action is to simultaneously focus on adaptation. Think about how you and your family will fare if there is a week of 50 degree temperatures, or if your city faces a "day zero" for water, like Cape Town did. What about a worldwide dip in food production, creating a new inflation breakout and a climate recession, like covid but permanent? This is the sort of thing I think is possible in my lifetime.
