Is imagining shortcomings on my behalf and then categorizing them as factual to use as evidence in an argument a part of these superior approaches you mention?
If I was to do the same to you, would you not protest?
I'm not imagining a shortcoming, rather I'm doing the opposite. I'm assuming you've done the proper research around climate change so I'm not going to patronize you with it. Therefore, I conclude you are not ignorant, you're willfully contrarian.
If you interpret that as a worse outcome, here's a thought: stop being willfully contrarian. Sometimes the most popular and most researched opinion is correct. You gain nothing by being contrarian.
Being skeptical is good. Being skeptical means you require a wealth of evidence to believe something. Well, if you don't believe in climate change, you're NOT skeptical - you're just an obnoxious contrarian. Because we have a wealth of evidence and I'm assuming you've reviewed it.
If I was to do the same to you, would you not protest?