Pretty much the only way to persuade someone, is to give them a brand new concept they’ve never seen before. They may then change from their old position to the new one(though it’s still unlikely). But anything they’ve already decided upon, is basically set in stone.
It’s not about the research money, not mostly, it’s about the political control and economic control that alarmists will take using climate change as an excuse. The fact that it’s widely disputed shows that it is disputable and insufficient for this test.
If you look at the citizenship test, linked above, you’ll find excellent examples of what CWolf and I are talking about. We have 50 states. Paul Ryan is the speaker of the house. Congress makes the law, etc. Not disputable.
Not generally, no. Some folks do. I have been. But it takes time, and ideas have to roll around the head before folks will move. They have to actually give the subject time a and thought, and I don’t think most follks care to.
Which is why CWolf’s comment above is mostly true. Honestly, the benefit of being informed compared to cost is pretty low for a lot of folks. It’s not laziness. It’s a matter of incentives. Even voting has a low benefit. They’re too busy doing other things they value more (so the benefits of information and voting are opportunity costs), like taking the kids to practice, working and paying the bills, skiing, visiting friends, etc.