OK, so what’s better than what else for discussing “climate change” with skeptics? Science is about skepticism, there is nothing fixed about positivist philosophy of science, and there is no such thing as “belief” in science. You did not write, but the fact of the matter is that, no one in his or her lifetime would “observe” climate change, so an empirical validation is impossible (unlike tobacco and cancer or smoking and health effects). The notion we have about the impact of fossil fuel > carbon output > temperature > climate > weather/frequency of natural disasters are “model based” (abstraction that requires systematic study to understand what they mean), and IPCC reports are not exactly New York times reports in terms of their lucidity.

Can you provide a set of guidelines as to what you found useful for discussing global warming to bring up and discuss with people who can think of alternative explanations? It’s easy to label them as skeptics and deniers but that, unfortunately, is not how knowledge has progressed over the centuries. The way is to take the assertions of those who would ascribe the phenomena to alternative theories and then tease out what’s admissible from what’s not from first principles. Have you found a way?