Again, I don’t think the problem is quite as wide, but this is obviously a YMMV difference.
I think what a lot of folks are concerned about is limiting some sort of loudspeaker effect - which is a very legitimate concern.
Citing an over-the-top, but easy to identify example: a lot of the propaganda that extremist leaders like Hitler and the like use might be demonstrably, factually incorrect. But it becomes “true” because so many people believe it because it’s delivered with charisma or errantly meets some sort of need or insecurity they experience.
Rolling that into the climate change debate, for the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, this is a settled issue. The only continuing debate is how much the impact is and what can be realistically done to address it.
Again, there are folks who resist this view, but at this point they’re the shrinking minority hold-outs that remain unconvinced when the same evidence is sufficient for the other vast majority who are convinced.
Perhaps we’re victims of the same sort of loudspeaker effect! But the probability of that being true diminishes with wider and wider consideration and agreement.
But you’re totally right. Being rude about it isn’t the best way to go. But that that point, both parties are probably equally hardened against genuine consideration of each-others points.
In the words of Vonnegut - “So it goes…”